Trilemma

Space security requires global government.

2012-01-17T15:49:00.000-08:00

In response to the Press Statement of Hillary Rodham Clinton,
Secretary of State, Washington, DC January 17, 2012

There is no doubt that the sustainable use of Earth’s orbit space environment is at serious risk from space debris.
There is also consensus that ensuring the security of our space systems is essential to numerous aspects of our national security and of vital interest to the global community.
Satellite systems enable the free flow of information across a variety of platforms that expand global markets, enhance weather forecasting and environmental monitoring, enable global navigation, transportation, and military targeting, and provide instantaneous data regarding natural and man made disasters.
Unless the international community successfully addresses the problem of space debris the orbital environment around earth will become increasingly hazardous to human spaceflight and all satellite systems. Such a hazard has security consequences for us all.
In response to this challenge, the US has joined with the European Union and other nations to develop an International Code of Conduct for Outer Space Activities. This Code of Conduct is intended to “help maintain the long-term sustainability, safety, stability, and security of space”. Unfortunately, establishing guidelines for the responsible use of space, will be as effective as any other unenforceable international agreement.
No nation will constrain it’s national security-related activities in space without assurances all others will.
Working to reverse the threatening trend that is populating orbital space with lethal debris will require 100 percent involvement. Any one nation, under any threat circumstance will move unconstrained to gain advantage of the high ground that orbital space offers.

National Sovereignty is lethal

2011-11-08T15:41:00.000-08:00

The Book review of “Sovereignty or Submission: Will Americans Rule Themselves or be ruled by Others?” (“Why global governance does not work” Washington Times, Nov 7, 2011) was so full of misconceptions and misinformation it should be shelved under fiction or humor.
First, “one-world government” isn’t a conspiracy. It’s a wise and rational goal given the reality that there is only one world and one human race. And we are running out of time to decide if we will continue to risk out most cherished freedom and security in a lawless world of war, genocidal leaders, catastrophic pandemics, and economic chaos, or thrive under a global rule of law established on most of the same principles our founding fathers aspired to.
As former Issues Director for the World Federalist Association (which unfortunately abandoned its original mission for reasons of political correctness) I can attest that the “transfer of political power to unaccountable transnational organizations” was never on the agenda. In fact, accountability of every government, corporation, president and dictator was. In the current system where national sovereignty reigns supreme over human rights, any government, can do whatever it wants, whenever it wants, to whomever it wants, without any accountability unless some other nation or extremist group decides to wage war, try to enforce sanctions which can be more deadly than war, or take their grievance to an anemic UN talk fest. Meantime, genocides go without intervention, explosive deadly border disputes rage for decades, and WMDs, pathogens, recessions and pollutants roam freely across every national border because ‘national sovereignty’ is powerless to stop them.
Mr. Fonte is “one of the very few scholarly defenders of sovereignties ideas” because the rest have come to the same realization. ‘National sovereignty’ is useless against a the growing array of threats that come with hyper globalization that is amplified by the exponential growth and increasing affordability of powerful dual-use technologies... a growing gap between rich and poor... and abusive governments and corporations that are not accountable to “we the people”.
Not a single ‘one world’ advocate that I know wants to “council countries like the United States to become like the United Nations”. In fact just the opposite. Most want the United Nations to be like the United States. They see the historical failure of confederations of states and the genius of federalism with a proper balancing of power between democratically elected bodies. Such a world federal government would “derive” it’s “just powers through the consent of the governed”, unlike the current system where the IMF, WTO, Iran and the USA can take actions that effect the world without being held accountable for the consequences.
While “it is unclear whether a majority of Westerners desire to live under the Kyoto Protocol” any rational schooled individual can see that ‘national sovereignty’ can’t protect them from the extreme weather conditions and other consequences associated with a changing climate. A climate most likely influenced or exacerbated by the policies of any nations excessive contribution of CO2 to our common atmosphere.
In the world government I (and many others advocate for) the WTO would have elected representatives, and there would be a supranational bureaucracy to appeal to, like the U.S. supreme court, as greivences arise. And, other measures like war and sanctions would no longer be needed.
And, yes, there would be a global bill of rights with an irrevocable “second Amendment” ensuring the basic right of every person and every nation the “right to bear arms”. If they wanted to waste their limited resources on such useless things, no law would stop them. But the misuse of any weapon for taking property or taking innocent lives would be dealt with swiftly. A SEAL Team like police force that would have the world’s people and all other nations backing it would capture suspects if possible, without the loss of innocent lives, and a world court of elected judges would hear the case.
We are not faced with a “clash between global governance and democratic sovereignty” as Mr. Fonte writes. We really face a reality struggle against those who think ‘sovereignty’ resides in governments...and those who believe sovereignty resides in “we the people” of the world.

Life is a gamble. Internet Gambling is a threat.

2011-10-29T18:24:00.000-07:00

Without enforceable international standards for online gaming/gambling, we increase risks to American security, prosperity and freedoms. After hearing the testimony on C-span below it will be as clear as full house.

National sovereignty is useless against this and every other global influence (finance, disease, climate change, WMD...).

Why can't any Member of Congress, Presidential candidate or Administration admit it?

http://democrats.energycommerce.house.gov/index.php?q=hearing/hearing-on-internet-gaming-is-there-a-safe-bet
Hearing on “Internet Gaming: Is There a Safe Bet?” | Committee on Energy and Commerce Democrats
The Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade held a hearing on Tuesday, October 25, 2011, at 10:30 a.m. in 2123 Rayburn House Office Building. The hearing is entitled “Internet Gaming: Is There a Safe Bet?”

Space! The final frontier, if we can get past the trash.

2011-10-28T17:19:00.001-07:00

Our nation’s satellite communications, meteorological and GPS systems are the foundation of America’s traditional military national security system as well as our vital infrastructure and addictive comforts. This is our Achilles heel that has at least three serious vulnerabilities.
In 2007 China demonstrated its capacity to hit that heel when it destroyed one of its own weather satellites with a direct hit from one of their own surface to space missiles. That ‘test’ intended to send a message to the US but it also created over 150,000 pieces of debris. It’s possible that the loss of a few of our key satellites would render many of or most powerful weapons systems blind.
With other nation’s launching satellites into space and acquiring missile and drone technologies that can match, assist or surpass China’s capability our Achilles heel will grow in vulnerability. And without an enforceable set of global rules and regulations an arms race in space appears inevitable. Given China’s growing economic and technological prowess, this is an arms race we may be destined to lose.
But even if humanity never sends up another rocket, there is another inevitable lethal threat to our nation’s dependence on space technology. Space junk. According to NASA there are tens of millions of pieces that space age nations have left in the heavenly region above earth since we started launching satellites over 50 years ago. Most trash pieces are much smaller in diameter than a baseball, with the majority being as small as screws or flecks of paint. But, the U.S. Space Surveillance Network is currently tracking approximately 22,000 pieces of orbital trash that are 4 inches in diameter or greater.
Still, some of the tiniest pieces of space trash can seriously damage or destroy a satellite when they collide at 17,500 miles per hour (orbital velocity) or faster. The kinetic force of almost any object at “a not-unreasonable relative velocity of, say five miles per second” could splinter another object or even a satellite into thousands of other pieces. Each piece then increasing the odds of creating more collisions. And when satellites accidently collide as two did in 2009 (a retired Russian communication satellite Cosmos 2251 with the US privately owned satellite Iridium) tens of thousands of new lethal trajectories can be created.
Defending satellites against small pieces of space trash is possible but expensive. The International Space Station has been covered with over 100 shields made from aluminum, ceramic and Kevlar fiber that can protect against objects smaller than half an inch. Taking evasive maneuvers against larger objects - as the International Space Station has done at least six times - can cost precious fuel and shorten the lifespan of the satellite.
As even a child can imagine, the inevitable collision of any combination of existing satellites and junk will create a runaway cascade of debris that will render space virtually unusable for any future scientific, private, militaristic or extraterrestrial endeavors.
Gravity, over decades will gradually remove some pieces. And intentional removal of space debris is certainly feasible. But it won’t be cheap. There are already dozens of ideas for junk recovery on the drawing board but it is unlikely we will be able to afford any of them given the our current inability for finding adequate financial resources essential for dealing with a growing array of problems down here on earth. Problems which arise from, or are perpetuated by, the unworkability of our world’s current ‘national sovereignty’ paradigm. It simply doesn’t allow for the democratic creation and global enforcement of universal rules and regulations.

Conclusion: Whether exploring for oil or other vital earth resources, tracking climate change or the movement of enemy troops, we depend on our eyes in the sky for our security and essential needs. If just one nation or corporation is allowed to trash the heavenly commons, no one will be spared the potentially catastrophic consequences. Enforceable global rules and regulations, democratically acquired and protective of humanities most basic human rights...is essential to a sustainable future of peace, prosperity and unprecedented freedoms. The key question is ‘Can we overcome our earthly worship of ‘national sovereignty’ to ensure a world that works for all.

US laws don't change China policy

2011-01-18T19:55:00.000-08:00

US Senators offering “get tough” legislation to force China to change its currency policy is laughable and pathetic. (Senators seek action on Chinese Currency, 1-18-11) Laughable because they assume our Constitution and laws can dictate actions of China’s policy makers. Pathetic, because they know the current global political system puts national sovereignty supreme to the needs of any nation, corporation, individual or environment.
Would these Senators or any US elected official change our currency policy if China or any other nation passes a ‘get tough’ law? These Senator’s rhetoric shows a profound indifference to the concept of independence that our government and laws are based on.
If any US policy maker is really interested in enacting policies to “preserve the American dream and promote job creation” they must first understand there are only four ways to stop currency manipulation by another nation.
The first is to create a single global currency. That would require a global agreement by all nations. No cheating. And, like the global eradication of smallpox, if just one nation didn’t participate, success could never be accomplished.
The second would require a global government with the means to create and enforce global laws. Any national leader implementing policy that hurt another nation would be held accountable. An expansion of the International Criminal Court to deal with crimes against economics would be essential.
The third would be to eliminate all currencies and go back to a system of bartering.
The forth is to launch a preemptive attack and change any regime that we believe threatens our economy. But that would also require preparation for any attack another nation might launch if they believe we threaten them. Just like the system we have now.
World law or global chaos. There is only one sane currency policy our Senators need to consider. In the real world there are only two places to find independence. On paper and in the minds of ineffectual policy makers.

BWC useless in preventing bioterrorism.

2010-12-07T16:46:00.000-08:00

Stats supporting the Biological Weapons Convention and anyone else believing they can reduce the abuse of biotechnology being used for producing bio-weapons are gravely mistaken. At best, we can build better surveillance and response networks to respond to bio events, man made or natural pandemics.
In the end, the only effective means of preventing bio terrorism and nature's pandemics is to transform our world from the current state where national sovereignty reigns supreme over human rights...to a world where the universal protection of human rights reigns supreme over national sovereignty and every religious ideology that with an extremist element.
In the current system even universal national adherence to BWC won't keep religious extremists from creating the most horrific weapons humanity has ever

Read the article below and pick out the falsities assumed by world leaders.

BWC Nations Should Weigh Impact of New Research, U.N. Chief Says
Tuesday, Dec. 7, 2010

States parties to the Biological Weapons Convention should establish a system for assessing how scientific and technological advances could affect efforts to rid the world of biological weapons, U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said in a statement to a meeting of the countries that started yesterday (see GSN, Dec. 3).

“While much is being done to promote assistance and cooperation for the peaceful uses of biological science and technology, more could still be done to improve coordination and communication,” Ban told the gathering. The event -- slated to continue through Friday in Geneva, Switzerland -- was the latest in a four-year series of meetings arranged at the 2006 BWC review conference with the goal of improving enforcement of the treaty and the pact's effectiveness in safeguarding against the production or employment of biological weapons (U.N. release I, Dec. 6).

The meetings have "been very successful in promoting ways to strengthen the implementation of the convention and to reduce the risks posed to global security by biological weapons and bioterrorism," Ban said. "In particular, it has produced common understandings that can serve as the basis for a wide range of national, regional and international actions.

"Next year, the seventh [BWC] review conference will consider how to build upon this work. Indeed, that meeting offers the best chance in a decade or more to reach significant agreements on the future of the convention," he said.

"You also face the challenge of achieving universal membership. Thirteen states have signed the convention without ratifying it, and 19 states have yet to sign it at all. I call on those states that have not done so to sign and ratify the convention without further delay.

"I encourage you to work together to develop practical proposals for the review conference, and to build on the sense of common purpose that has emerged," Ban added (U.N. release II, Dec. 6).

The Biological Weapons Convention has 163 states parties (U.N. release I).

Distractions from our real problems

2010-11-27T12:10:00.000-08:00

"As our TV and internet keeps us preoccupied with mindless shows and trivial political infighting, things on the WORLD stage are changing fast, economically, militarily and ecologically. Don’t you agree it is on the WORLD stage that we better start coming together?"
Debbie Metke 11-26-10

This paragraph fairly sums up our current national predicament. I'm not optimistic that our nation will overcome this tendency...but recognizing the problem is the first step in resolving it.

Thank you Deb for stating it so clearly and briefly.

Polio eradication impossible without universal effort

2010-10-09T18:40:00.000-07:00

Polio has killed and crippled millions of innocent children for centuries. Due to repeated vaccination efforts there has not been a case of polio in the Western Hemishpere for nearly a decade.
In 1990 the world agreed to fund a campaign to eradicate polio by the year 2000 just as smallpox had been eradicated two decades earlier. Lack of funding, wars and other priorities prevented humankind from eliminating this destructive virus on this reasonable time table.
Eradication was missed again in 2003 as rumors swept across northern Nigeria that the house to house vaccination campaign was part of a covert effort to sterilize Muslim girls. One could speculate that the US invasion plans for Iraq had some influence on propagation of this rumor.
This vaccination interruption made Nigeria the only country in Africa to have never eradicated polio. It led to large outbreaks of polio that not only crippled thousands of Nigerian children but also spread to other African nations and beyond. According to USAID polio eventually returned to 20 countries that were previously polio free.
In 2005 vaccination efforts resumed but suffered from inertia and lack of funding and training. Castigated by other Islamic nations for its polio immunization failures Nigeria revitalized is program in 2008. From late 2009 through April 2010 there were only two confirmed cases compared to 388 in the same period a year earlier.
If just one community in Nigeria, or any other nation in the world refuses to join in the polio eradication campaign, every nation in the world must maintain a polio immunization program. Perhaps as bad, the longer we postpone the eradication of this virus the greater chance that evolution will have its way with this virus and a new strain will emerge that will require an entirely new global eradication effort assuming the new strain will be as vulnerable to our new vaccines.

Space sovereignty

2010-07-08T05:33:00.000-07:00

Since 1979, the United Nations has been encouraging all nations to ratify an international treaty to use UN values to govern the use of outer space. The so-called “Moon Agreement” requires that all activities on the moon and other celestial bodies be carried out in accordance with international law, in particular the Charter of the United Nations.
The unenforceable agreement also provides that the exploration and use of outer space “shall be the province of all mankind and shall be carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries, irrespective of their degree of economic or scientific development.” Recent actions taken by the Obama administration indicate that it supports the concept of governing outer space for the collective good of humanity...thus the recent statement of NASA Administrator Charles Bolden that “NASA is not only a space exploration agency, but also an earth improvement agency.”

But what if just one nation disagrees...and uses it's technology to gain a military or economic monopolistic control of space? THe danger to our technologically dependent society is already at risk from the increasing quantity of space junk. If just one nation ignores this danger it puts an increased burden on other states committed to reducing the number of fragments that can destroy our satellite controlled society.

Junk shot or space junk shotting?

2010-06-03T22:25:00.001-07:00

While oil spewing into the Gulf of Mexico is our immediate concern and a successful “Junk shot” is something we hoped could solve that problem – there is another junk shot far more ominous to our future. Space junk shooting though our satellite orbits is far more menacing and infinitely harder to cap. Welcome to what NASA calls the "Kessler Syndrome".
In a 1978 paper titled “Collision Frequency of Artificial Satellites: The creation of a Debris Belt” Donald Kessler, now a retired NASA astrophysicist, outlined a catastrophic scenario: Old satellites and other space debris accumulating until collisions become inevitable. As colliding objects shatter into countless equally destructive bits, a chain reaction of more collisions will quickly follow. Kessler wrote “The result would be an exponential increase in the number of objects with time … creating a belt of debris around the Earth.” The consequences appeared self evident and NASA responded by setting up the Orbital Debris Program Office to study the problem and put Kessler in charge.
Kessler prediction of a runaway cascade of collisions happening in 30 to 40 years became known as the Kessler Syndrome. It was a threat that even science fiction writer Arthur C. Clark foresaw in his 1979 novel “The Fountains of Paradise”. Clark’s future scenario warned of a lethal belt of space junk cutting earth off from space by destroying our vital communications satellites and potentially sinking us “back into the dark age” [where] “the resultant chaos, disease and starvation would destroy much of the human race.” Now knowing our increasing dependence on satellites for everything from weather and crop forecasting to finding energy sources or tracking WMD, Clark may not be too far off the mark.
Taking the high road Kessler and his ODPO colleagues developed a set of guide lines in hopes of slowing the accumulation of space junk. They proposed rules that would limit what could be abandoned in space and they required satellite operators to help clean up the geosynchronous belt 22,400 miles above Earth. The good news is that by 2008, similar guidelines had been adopted by most of the major space agencies around the world. The bad news is that ‘most’ isn’t good enough and for at least three other reasons this hopeful progress is virtually irrelevant.
First, the guidelines are voluntary and not enforceable. No world law exists to punish offenders and not global agency is funded to monitor or address this growing threat. Second, controls are expensive to implement and even without a global recession, other earthy priorities are likely to take precedent. Especially when each nation sees the value of satellites as essential to their own individual national security concerns. Third, if just one nation chooses to ignore the guidelines for any reason, all other nations will suffer.
Last, a single collision event could undo any benefits from universal adherence to the rules -- as demonstrated January 11, 2007 when China was showing it’s anti-satellite capacity to the US and launched a missile that hit one of its own retired satellites. The single hit created 3000 traceable pieces. Relatively new to space efforts China already accounts for nearly a third of all space junk attributed to specific launches. They are now very close to matching US and Russian numbers.
The real surprise came on February 10, 2009 when two satellites, Iridium 33 (relaying phone conversations) and Cosmos 2251 (a old Russian communication outpost) each closing in at 5 miles per second, collided creating roughly 2,100 new pieces of junk expanding into a cloud of lethal debris, each capable of taking out any other satellite in its path. Now the “Kessler Syndrome” was real.
Almost immediately our military’s Space Surveillance Network doubled it’s computer capacity and by early 2010 was tracking 1000 active satellites and rocket fragments, and another 15,300 objects the size of a fist or larger. It still ignores an estimated 500,000 smaller fragments of junk the size of a marble or larger, each still capable of taking out a satellite.
NASA officials acknowledge that orbital debris is the greatest threat to the $100 billion International Space Station and its continued proliferation threatens future space missions and global communications (mobile phones networks, satellite television, radio broadcasts, weather tracking, military surveillance and GPS devises that help us target terrorists in Kandahar or find a gas station in Kansas) which almost all relate to our individual freedoms and national security.
It should be clear to all, not just US spy satellite enthusiasts, that space junk removal is essential to all human advancements. And, while creative ideas for removing junk from orbit are plentiful -- funding and political will to do something in every nation are not.
Even if the US took this task on alone, it would only takes one renegade nation unwilling to participate, or intentionally sabotaging our efforts (see cyber war capacity) for the Kessler Syndrome to put us on a roulette wheel back into the dark ages.
Anything short of a globally funded, implemented and enforced space junk cleanup program would be a serious problem for all civilized nations. Only in places like Haiti will it be relatively irrelevant.

Wall Street's 'Flash Crash'

2010-05-23T16:18:00.000-07:00

Wall Street’s brief ‘flash crash’ in May, 2010 when the DOW plummeted nearly 1000 points before a near recovery at the end of the trading day may be one more reminder of the need to balance freedom and security using fair and enforceable regulations globally.
The cause of the crash is still a mystery but regulators do suspect an obscure corner of the stock market referred to as ‘off exchange trading’. The New York Stock Exchange is no longer the main venue for trading stocks in the U.S. Now, according to Ben Steverman in Bloomberg BusinessWeek, “equity markets have become fragmented among different exchanges and trading platforms” in which a few firms use powerful computers to execute tens of thousands of trades a second. This “high-frequency trading” is what some regulators believe may be the trigger of financial trading insecurity.
Even if high frequency traders didn’t spark the drop their turbo charged technology certainly accelerated it. When the free fall began NYSE “circuit breakers” kicked in to slow trading by putting a floor under falling stock prices. But just as quickly, some traders moved their dealing to alternative trading platforms, where similar safeguards don’t exist. This small number of ‘independent’ high-frequency traders flooded the market with sell orders. At least one valuable stock (Accenture) fell to a penny a share. Michael Hiltzik in the Los Angels Times believes “by any rational standard of market performance, that’s a sin,” and the Securities and Exchange Commission is largely responsible by allowing such trading to grow so large that it threatens the entire financial system. But even the SEC has neither the technology or the expertise to control or moderate it.
The problem, said James Angel in Forbes.com, is that “markets now react in milliseconds to events, but are monitored by humans who respond in minutes.” The trading industry could speed up fail safes and implement automated circuit breakers that operate simultaneously across every trading venue. This would give humans a chance to step in and prevent the inevitable trading glitch from cascading into disastrous market meltdowns.
Summary: By reducing the freedom of independent traders to do “off exchange trading” and also implementing enforceable global controls we may be able to reduce the economic insecurity of trading. Such ‘accidents’ as the flash crash can pave the way for great innovation. But ultimately, given the difficulty in following and monitoring money exchanges (see 4 basic treaty groups)…even this won’t ensure economic stability for all. That will require a transformed global economic system covering nearly all aspects of trade and finance plus fair and enforceable means of their global regulation.
Is this was traders want? Is this what ‘we the people’ want? Stock trading may be one element of security where most of us simply don’t care. But I’m guessing in the larger scheme of things the DOW does has some important role to play in our national and global affairs of economic security. I just haven’t learned it yet.

NPT has three serious flaws

2010-05-03T21:16:00.000-07:00

Support for NPT makes at least three fundamental errors in logic.
1. Even if all nation states agree to rid the world of all nukes…
a. There is little chance it will be verifiable …or be verified under the current ‘national sovereignty is supreme’ condition the world now operates under.
b. There is no reasonable means to verify non-state actors won’t succeed in obtaining one or more.
c. It is probable that one or more nations will cheat…and lie about it.
2. If all nuclear weapons are successfully eliminated
a. Other means of mass murder (biological, chemical and conventional weapons) can be more lethal, cheaper and easier to develop, hide, and deliver -- without warning or leaving a return address.
b. In the future there may be a need for nuclear weapons (blasting asteroids or alien invaders).
3. It assumes that its successful passage and attempted enforcement will make us safer. Efforts to enforce it could lead to war (see Iraq. See Iran.) At the very best some people may be safer from nuclear incineration, but the world will be increasingly vulnerable to other means of mass destruction as long as the human desire to mass murder exists.
Bottom line: Elimination of all nuclear weapons is a noble goal and possibly even achievable if all nations and all humans support it. But there are far more lethal weapons that cannot be controlled, even with the most intrusive and expansive global inspection regime possible. Ultimately efforts to control the means of mass destruction will fail miserably. It would be far wiser to invest precious time, energy and resources in dramatically limiting the human desire to use any WMD. That would require global justice, education and universal enforcement of other basic inalienable human rights (see UDHR).

Yemen, Underwear bomber, 5 jihadists and Cuba?

2010-01-05T22:25:00.000-08:00

Perhaps this isn’t the best time to bring up the issue of defining terrorism but I can’t help it given the conflicting views that persist.
First there is the five US citizen’s captured in Pakistan and accused of being terrorists. These 5 men (ages 19-25) deny any link to al Qaeda or any plan to carry out a terrorist attack. One of them said “we are not terrorists…we are jihadists, and jihad is not terrorism. They see jihad as their religious right, to study Islam, to care for the sick, or to fight against the foreign forces occupying a Muslim country - Afghanistan. It is their God given duty “to help the helpless Muslims” who are in trouble, who are bleeding and who are being victimized by Western forces. What’s odd is that these men were all from Alexandria, VA. It would seem the would be of more service to Al Qaeda, if they were terrorists, finding targets around the Potomac, than in facing US soldiers and high tech weapons on hair trigger in the mountains of Afganistan.
Second, after the terror attempt by the underwear bomber, new flight restrictions were added to 14 countries. Cuba was one of them. Cuba? There are more Jewish terrorists than there are Cuban terrorists. Cuban leaders are communists not religious. And, their most radical youth are skateboarders. Cuba? Our nation risks all credibility in putting Cuba on a terrorist watch list. If nothing else it’s a distraction from what our intelligence agencies should be doing. Maybe that’s why we didn’t catch an obvious terrorist like the underwear bomber.
Third, on a “Current/Vanguard” investigative journalist program “America’s Secret War with Iran” a group of Iranian dissidence called the PJAC were interviewed. They were based about 50 Kilometers inside Iraq away from the Iranian border. From Iraq they conduct occasional attacks against the Iranian Regime which they obviously have issues with. Iranian forces see these trouble makers who kill both Iranian soldiers and civilians as “terrorists”. In fact, the PJAC is an Iranian Kurdish offshoot of Pakistan’s Kurdish PKK. The PKK is an organization that attacks our ally Turkey putting them on our nations list of officially targeted terrorist groups. Did you keep all this straight? I think I’m finally getting it. If we don’t like someone we call them terrorists. If they are terrorizing someone we don’t like… they’re not terrorists.
Meanwhile, “Yemen’s fragile government is in a delicate balancing act between it allegiance to the US – and tribal, political and religious forces that resent US interference in Yemen and sympathize with al – Qaeda’s ideology” reported the Washington Post (“Yemen walks fine line in aiding US” 1-5-10). The government’s “survival depends on powerful tribal and social groups” that “have strong connections to al-Qaeda.” Opposition politicians in Yemen’s parliament warn “many Yemenis will support al-Qaeda if the conflict escalates.” It appears some “Tribal leaders and lawmakers in the south are furious about what they say was a US sponsored airstrike on civilians” December 17. The government says it targeted “militants and their relatives”. It is feared that “Yemen’s security forces” have been “infiltrated by al-Qaeda sympathizers”. Given the results of 7 CIA officials killed by a double agent in Afghanistan – Yemen could get real messy. Assuming those killed by US assisted air strikes were not civilians…do “militants and their relatives” deserve to be bombed into little pieces with only suspicion of being al Qaeda sympathizers? How terrorizing can that be for other al Qaeda sympathizers in south Yemen who fear they and their relatives could be vaporized without a warning or a trial? Remind me who again are the terrorists? And what again are we fighting for? Oh yes! I almost forgot. They’re sitting on our oil.

US decline following Rome's. Bush to blame.

2010-01-03T17:28:00.000-08:00

Dear Editor,
Jeffery Kuhner’s claim that our great nation may be declining like the Roman Empire (A Decade of Decline, Oped 1-3-10) may be correct but some of his diagnostics are off. Former President Bush can be blamed for some of the decline but his “championed nation building abroad” wouldn’t be part of it. In fact, he campaign pledge was not to do nation building. Fact is our nations failure to help facilitate civilized governments the world over for the last 3 decades is now the greatest source of “Barbarians” at our gates. Our primary foreign policy priorities during those decades were containing communism, maintaining access to oil, and backing the state of Israel. Often these priorities inhibited civilized nation building.
Bush’s costly wars that Mr. Kuhner documents were costly because of military expenditures…not because of nation building expenses. Any honest budget analysis would show a near ten to one bias in favor of military power vs. the moral power of development or diplomacy also essential to nation building. Development and diplomacy were only rhetorical priorities in Bush’s Global War on Terrorism. Making matters more lopsided is the fact that “nation building” was only an afterthought, once his shock and awe invasion and unfriendly occupation failed in finding Saddam’s WMDs. As with the fall of Rome it will be Bushs’ costly foreign military interventions that are most to blame.
Kuhner’s suggestion that “our goal should have been to smash the forces of global jihad through a strategy of total victory through total war” is laughable. One of the greatest factors feeding global jihad after 9-11 has been the loss of innocent Muslim lives as a direct and indirect result of US military action. Such ‘collateral damage’ is the cost of any war and our limited war has kept those losses relatively low. But, unfortunately still too high for many Muslims to stomach. Accidentally murdering tens or hundreds of thousands more, which would undoubtedly happen under Kuhner’s plan would lead to Armageddon…not victory.
Mr. Kuhner’s claim that “Rome collapsed due to moral decline” may also be accurate but he offers only a fraction of Rome’s moral decay as evidence. He doesn’t’ mention Rome’s glorification of violence, or it’s indifference to the poor, homeless, illiterate, hungry and sick. Rome’s leadership was “scorned” and “reviled” for these shortcomings far more than it’s sexual decadence or “infanticide”.
The U.S. has the means of avoiding Rome’s path of self destruction but that would mean taking the higher ground of ‘life, liberty and justice for all’ in the world. Not some fantasy that we can remain the world’s superpower by crushing any who threaten us. A little known bearded man during Rome’s era of power once said, ‘those who live by the sword, will certainly die by it”. Ever wonder what the world be like today if they had listened to that meek and loving profit -- instead of torturing him on a cross?

The chaos of National Sovereignty

2009-12-18T23:46:00.000-08:00

The chaos of national sovereignty:

The aggressive unilateralism of the last Bush administration was essentially business as usual. A US president withheld the right to do anything, to anyone, any time.

After the Cold War and the Clinton administration’s appeal to multilateralism even he ended up rejecting key international treaties, launching military actions in Iraq and Kosovo without UN approval, and, continued insisting that we were an ‘indispensable nation.’ Reagan, Johnson, and Truman did the same. The last Bush administration did it even more.

Now, President Barack Obama is doing some of the same. In his Oslo Nobel acceptance speech, he too acknowledged that he cannot step outside the national sovereignty box. He did refer to the nonviolence of Martin Luther King, Jr. and Gandhi -- but he still devoted most of his remarks to defending the concept of war. Specifically the ‘war’ in Afghanistan. He said "We must begin by acknowledging the hard truth that we will not eradicate violent conflict in our lifetimes,"... "There will be times when nations - acting individually or in concert - will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified." So, our newest President still believes that wars can be morally justified -- if conducted in self-defense, as a last resort, and if the use of force is proportional, and if, whenever possible, collateral damage is avoided.

The problem with this interpretation of just-war theory is that it doesn’t fit the war in Afghanistan. There, it is not in self defense. The Taliban do not pose a threat to our national security and the few al-Qaeda remnants that remain can be relocate almost anywhere. Second, our military force there is far from proportional. The most powerful nation in the world is bombing one of the weakest. And civilians losses have not been light. Stephen Walt calculations suggest that our forces have killed between12,000-32,000 civilians in Afghanistan since 2002. We have lost fewer than 1,000 U.S. soldiers. Our Afghanistan war is still a war of choice.

At Oslo, Obama did reassure the Europeans that American policy would be fairer. "America cannot insist that others follow the rules of the road if we refuse to follow them ourselves," he said. "For when we don't, our action can appear arbitrary, and undercut the legitimacy of future intervention - no matter how justified." Obama satisfied many others by offering nuclear disarmament (but not today), closing Guantanamo (mostly), surging in Afghanistan (for now), bumping up military spending (a little), reducing CO2 emissions (but not much), and banning torture (but not rendition).
Essentially, it looks like the needed transformation of US foreign policy to achieve real peace is not in the cards. In The Cairo Detour, Farrah Hassen said "He didn't acknowledge the growing civilian casualties - not limited to but certainly increased by drone attacks, ostensibly aimed at dismantling the Taliban and al-Qaeda. These casualties have increased the risk of blowback against the United States rather than win the hearts and minds of Afghans, Pakistanis, and Muslims throughout the world."
The Obama Doctrine remains ‘multilateralism when we can’. And as long as we and the rest of the world rely on this fundamentally chaotic nature of national sovereignty…we will not know real peace or security. For peace/security is not a function of armaments or dis-armaments. It is a function of justice. And justice is a function of law. National sovereignty is neither just nor lawful. It is the system of lawlessness that has brought us two world wars, the cold war, dozens of small wars and genocides…and now the endless war on terrorism. Armageddon here we come.

Global Citizenship

2009-12-05T13:39:00.000-08:00

http://www.ted.com/talks/gordon_brown_on_global_ethic_vs_national_interest.html

Urgent and massive reform of international institutions is key to resolving global problems and preventing catastrophic threats. These reforms should be made by a democratic process. That will first require global citizenship and the global rule of law. As long as the system of national sovereignty (the rights of nations) reigns supreme over the need to protect human rights, adequate reform will not happen. Not without catastrophic pain and suffering of the majority population within nations forcing the governments to change.

Global Rule of Law perfered by most people.

2009-11-20T21:01:00.000-08:00

“A global system based on the rule of law?” American and international polls suggest most people now support it. Unfortunately, fear of world government will rule it out. Conservatives will fear having it and liberals will fear talking about it. And most people will remain oblivious to our need for it. And, need means need. Without it, maximum freedom or security will remain elusive and increasingly difficult for all people and all nations.
The Council on Foreign Relation’s Program on International Institutions and Global Governance is seeking to identify the institutional requirements for effective multilateral cooperation in the twenty-first century. Unfortunately, unenforceable cooperation and international treaties will continue to excite such intellectuals but they will continue to fail to deliver.
The polls on global and American attitudes on international institutions and an array of global issues suggest significant overlap between global and U.S. opinion -- and a few noteworthy differences. Public polls in both the US and abroad indicate most citizen views on world order are strongly internationalist in orientation. They believe that global challenges are simply too complex and daunting to be addressed by unilateral or even regional means. In every country polled, most people support a global system based on the rule of law, international treaties, and robust multilateral institutions. They believe their own government is obliged to abide by international law, even when doing so is at odds with its perceived national interest. Large majorities, including among Americans, reject a hegemonic role for the United States, but do want the United States to participate in multilateral efforts to address international issues.
http://www.cfr.org/thinktank/iigg/pop/about.html\
Regarding UN: Most Americans favor a world order that is multipolar or led by the United Nations, rather than based on U.S. hegemony or a bipolar balance. They believe that all nations must abide by international law even when doing so is at odds with their national interest. A large majority of Americans express support for U.S. participation in the International Criminal Court, even after hearing past U.S. government objections. And most Americans believe that the United Nations plays a necessary role in the world, including in legitimating the use of armed force. They also favor giving the United Nations stronger powers to investigate human rights violations and to regulate the international arms trade (though not, significantly, to impose any taxes). At the same time, surveys show significant dissatisfaction with the UN's actual performance in fulfilling its missions, contributing to erratic overall evaluations of the UN as an institution.

National Soverienty can't help us.

2009-11-02T21:12:00.000-08:00

"Environmental alarmism" is not "being exploited to chip away at national sovereignty" ("Green world government," Editorial, Tuesday). Reality is. National sovereignty is only a concept that exists in our minds. It does not exist in the natural world on which we depend for sustenance and prosperity.
Economic growth; freedom from weapons of mass destruction; and addressing climate change, pandemics and genocide will not be achieved by relying on the "national sovereignty" paradigm that allows every nation to do whatever it wants, whenever it wants, to whomever it wants.
Enforceable international laws that protect our inalienable human rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness may not ensure peace, pure water or protection from all pandemics. However, they can provide a cooperative environment in which early detection of and rapid response to transnational threats can best assist humanity.
An effective global government doesn't have to be a repressive, tyrannical force. By following the wisdom of our Founding Fathers, we could create a world federation where a separation of powers, a global bill of rights and a representative democracy could give us the security we need and the freedoms we desire.
Unenforceable treaties are not capable of yielding the cooperation needed in our irreversibly interconnected and interdependent world. National sovereignty is a concept that must eventually yield to a greater decision-making body, just as Maryland must yield its state sovereignty to the Supreme Court when its state laws violate federal laws.
CHUCK WOOLERY
Rockville

Walter Cronkite speech supporting world government

2009-09-13T22:53:00.000-07:00

The United Nations, national sovereignty and the future of the world.

Upon receiving the Norman Cousins Global Governance Award,
on October 19, 1999, at the UN Delegates Dining Room.

"I am greatly honored to receive this Norman Cousins Global Governance Award for two reasons:
First, I believe as Norman Cousins did that the first priority of humankind in this era is to establish an effective system of world law that will assure peace with justice among the peoples of the world.
Second, I feel sentimental about this award because half a century ago Norman offered me a job as spokesman and Washington lobbyist for the World Federalist organization, which was then in its infancy.
I chose instead to continue in the world of journalism. For many years, I did my best to report on the issues of the day in as objective a manner as possible. When I had my own strong opinions, as I often did, I tried not to communicate them to my audience.
Now, however, my circumstances are different. I am in a position to speak my mind. And that is what I propose to do.
Those of us who are living today can influence the future of civilization. We can influence whether our planet will drift into chaos and violence, or whether through a monumental educational and political effort we will achieve a world of peace under a system of law where individual violators of that law are brought to justice.
For most of this fairly long life I have been an optimist harboring a belief that as our globe shrank, as our communication miracles brought us closer together, we would begin to appreciate the commonality of our universal desire to live in peace and that we would do something to satisfy that yearning of all peoples. Today I find it harder to cling to that hope.
For how many thousands of years now have we humans been what we insist on calling "civilized?" And yet, in total contradiction, we also persist in the savage belief that we must occasionally, at least, settle our arguments by killing one another.
While we spend much of our time and a great deal of our treasure in preparing for war, we see no comparable effort to establish a lasting peace. Meanwhile, emphasizing the sloth in this regard, those advocates who work for world peace by urging a system of world government are called impractical dreamers. Those impractical dreamers are entitled to ask their critics what is so practical about war.
It seems to many of us that if we are to avoid the eventual catastrophic world conflict we must strengthen the United Nations as a first step toward a world government patterned after our own government with a legislature, executive and judiciary, and police to enforce its international laws and keep the peace.
To do that, of course, we Americans will have to yield up some of our sovereignty. That would be a bitter pill. It would take a lot of courage, a lot of faith in the new order.
But the American colonies did it once and brought forth one of the most nearly perfect unions the world has ever seen.
The circumstances were vastly different, obviously. While the colonies differed on many questions, at least the people of the colonies were of the same Anglo-Saxon stock. Yet just because the task appears forbiddingly hard, we should not shirk it.
We cannot defer this responsibility to posterity. Time will not wait. Democracy, civilization itself, is at stake. Within the next few years we must change the basic structure of our global community from the present anarchic system of war and ever more destructive weaponry to a new system governed by a democratic UN federation.
I suppose I'm preaching to the choir here. So let's not talk generalities but focus tonight on a few specifics of what the leadership of the World Federalist Movement believe must be done now to advance the rule of world law.
For starters, we can draw on the wisdom of the framers of the US Constitution in 1787. The differences among the American states then were as bitter as differences among the nation-states in the world today.
In their almost miraculous insight, the founders of our country invented "federalism," a concept that is rooted in the rights of the individual. Our federal system guarantees a maximum of freedom but provides it in a framework of law and justice.
Our forefathers believed that the closer the laws are to the people, the better. Cities legislate on local matters; states make decisions on matters within their borders; and the national government deals with issues that transcend the states, such as interstate commerce and foreign relations. That is federalism.
Today we must develop federal structures on a global level. We need a system of enforceable world law-- a democratic federal world government--to deal with world problems.
What Alexander Hamilton wrote about the need for law among the 13 states applies today to the approximately 200 sovereignties in our global village:
"To look for a continuation of harmony between a number of independent, unconnected sovereignties in the same neighborhood, would be to disregard the uniform course of human events, and to set at defiance the accumulated experience of ages."
Today the notion of unlimited national sovereignty means international anarchy. We must replace the anarchic law of force with a civilized force of law.
Ours will neither be a perfect world, nor a world without disagreement and occasional violence. But it will be a world where the overwhelming majority of national leaders will consistently abide by the rule of world law, and those who won't will be dealt with effectively and with due process by the structures of that same world law. We will never have a city without crime, but we would never want to live in a city that had no system of law to deal with the criminals who will always be with us.
Let me make three suggestions for immediate action that would move us in a direction firmly in the American tradition of law and democracy. 1. Keep our promises: We helped create the UN and to develop the UN assessment formula. Americans overwhelmingly want us to pay our UN dues, with no crippling limitations. We owe it to the world. In fact, we owe it as well to our national self-esteem. 2. Ratify the Treaty to Ban Land Mines, the Law of the Sea Treaty, the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, the Convention to Eliminate All forms of Discrimination Against Women, and the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Most important, we should sign and ratify the Treaty for a Permanent International Criminal Court. That Court will enable the world to hold individuals accountable for crimes against humanity. 3. Consider, after 55 years, the possibility of a more representative and democratic system of decision making at the UN. This should include both revision of the Veto in the Security Council and adoption of a weighted voting system for the General Assembly. The World Federalists have endorsed Richard Hudson's Binding Triad proposal. George Soros, in his recent book, "The Crisis of Global Capitalism" has given serious attention to this concept which would be based upon not only one-nation-one-vote but also, on population and contributions to the UN budget.
Resolutions adopted by majorities in each of these three areas would be binding, enforceable law. Within the powers given to it in the Charter, the UN could then deal with matters of reliable financing, a standing UN Peace force, development, the environment and human rights.
Some of you may ask why the Senate is not ratifying these important treaties and why the Congress is not paying our UN dues. Even as with the American rejection of the League of Nations, our failure to live up to our obligations to the United Nations is led by a handful of willful senators who choose to pursue their narrow, selfish political objectives at the cost of our nation's conscience.
They pander to and are supported by the so called “Christian Coalition”. Their leader, Pat Robertson, has written that we should have a world government but only when the messiah arrives. Any attempt to achieve world order before that time must be the work of the Devil!
This small but well-organized group, has intimidated both the Republican Party and the Clinton administration. It has attacked each of our Presidents since FDR for supporting the United Nations. Robertson explains that these Presidents were and are the unwitting agents of Lucifer.
The only way we who believe in the vision of a democratic world federal government can effectively overcome this reactionary movement is to organize a strong educational counteroffensive stretching from the most publicly visible people in all fields to the humblest individuals in every community. That is the vision and the program of the World Federalist Association.
The strength of the World Federalist program would serve an important auxiliary purpose at this particular point in our history. There would be immediate diplomatic advantages in just the world knowledge that this country was even beginning to explore the prospect of strengthening the UN. We would appear before the peoples of the world as the champion of peace for all by the equitable sharing of power. This in sharp contrast to the growing concern that we intend to use our current dominant military power to enforce a sort of pax Americana.
Our country today is at a stage in our foreign policy similar to that crucial point in our nation's early history when our Constitution was produced in Philadelphia.
Let us hear the peal of a new international liberty bell that calls us all to the creation of a system of enforceable world law in which the universal desire for peace can place its hope and prayers.
As Carl Van Doren has written, "History is now choosing the founders of the World Federation. Any person who can be among that number and fails to do so has lost the noblest opportunity of a lifetime.""
-----------------

Some of the most famous World Federalists are Albert Einstein, Walter Cronkite, Bertrand Russell, Norman Cousins, John Nash (of "Beautiful Mind" fame), and celebrities have included Martin Sheen (the "President" of The West Wing), Jean Stapleton, Lloyd Bridges, Jack Lemmon, Steve Allen, Dennis Weaver, and Sir Peter Ustinov, who is the President of the International World Federalist Movement.

Disarmament is dead. And war is obsolete.

2009-04-05T18:41:00.002-07:00

Disarmament is dead. The dual use nature of all technology killed it.

President Obama’s recent pledge to eliminate nuclear weapons may be popular but it is irrelevant to making humanity safer from the production or use of WMD. Only a fool would try to debate the facts below.

1. Nuclear weapons could be completely eliminated from the planet but the capacity to make biological weapons of mass destruction will remain and increase with time.
2. Biological weapons are far easier and cheaper to make and infinitely easier to deliver than nuclear weapons. They could also be more lethal.
3. The same biological technology used to create cures for cancer or HIV/AIDS can be used to make WMD that could target specific ethnic groups with a similar genetic profile.
4. Even the most intrusive Nazi like global police force wouldn't be able to control the use of this technology or find it wherever it might be misused.

As Emery Reves stated in the Anatomy of Peace, security isn’t a function of armament or disarmament. Real world security is a function of law. World law could outlaw nuclear weapons and try to outlaw the creation of biological weapons but only a world law that enforces the universal declaration of Human rights will create a human environment where the desire to use WMD will be most effectively reduced.

Working for disarmament is a distraction from creating a world where maximum freedom and security can be achieved. If you disbelieve disarmament will bring peace or security read on…

Once the mechanics and the fundamental causes of wars – of all wars – are realized, the futility and childishness of the passionate debates about armament and disarmament must be apparent to all. If human society were organized so that relations between groups and units in contact were regulated by democratically controlled law and legal institutions, then modern science could go ahead, devise and produce the most devastating weapons, and there would be no war. But if we allow sovereign rights to reside in the separate units and groups without regulating their relations by law, then we can prohibit every weapon, even a penknife, and people will beat out each other’s brains with clubs.
Emory Reves, The Anatomy of Peace, 1945

“People must bring a machete, a spear, an arrow, a hoe, spades, rakes, nails, truncheons, electric irons, barbed wire, stones, and the like, in order, dear listeners, to kill Rawandan Tutsis.” (A Hutu’s call to arms quoted in THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, August 19, 1998, p. A-18)

The main focus of international attention must move beyond the symptoms of weapons proliferation to its causes. It may seem easier to control supply, yet it is demand that raises the tide of proliferation.
Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists for Jan-Feb 1999, p. 76, "Book Note" on Kosta Tsipis and Philip Morrison's book, "Reason Enough for Hope."

"The choice is his [Saddam Hussein's], and if he does not disarm, the United States of America will lead a coalition and disarm him in the name of Peace."
-- George W. Bush, (1946- ) 43rd US President

Albert Einstein once said that the most powerful force in the Universe is exponential growth. Here are three facts that every policy maker must eventually consider.
1. Exponential growth of technology: The power of all technologies are growing exponentially and all have the dual use capacity for creation of WMD.
2. Linear thinking: If we think about these threats …it is likely linear thinking.
3. Flat line government change: Policy responses to both these technologies and all threats are virtually flat lined.

Time is not on humanities side.

"When they took the 4th Amendment, I was quiet because I didn't deal drugs.
When they took the 6th Amendment, I was quiet because I am innocent.
When they took the 2nd Amendment, I was quiet because I don't own a gun.
Now they have taken the 1st Amendment, and I can only be quiet."
-- Lyle Myhr

"There are some who feel like that, you know, the conditions are such that they can attack us there [in Iraq]. My answer is, 'Bring 'em on.' "
-- George W. Bush (1946- ) 43rd US President, July 3, 2003

7 reasons why Humanity will go extinct: #1.

2009-03-01T16:58:00.000-08:00

SEVEN Reasons why Humanity will likely become extinct. #1 is Minds capacity for imagination.

1. Human imagination.

In examining almost any human, national or global problem today and then listening to the proposed solutions from various political viewpoints any thoughtful person will quickly acknowledge a most troubling human truth/reality.

Our most unique and useful skill as human beings is also our most destructive. It is our brains genetically endowed capacity to believe anything.

“Humans are capable of a unique trick, creating realities by first imagining them, by experiencing them in their minds. …As soon as we sense the possibility of a more desirable world, we begin behaving differently, as though that world is starting to come into existence, as though, in our mind’s eye, we are already there. The dream becomes an invisible force which pulls us forward. By this process it begins to come true. The act of imagining somehow makes it real… And what is possible in art becomes thinkable in life”. Brian Eno

But, this mind enabled power to change things also allows humans to imagine possibilities that never were or never can be a reality. It is within this unique mental capacity of all humans that humanity’s survival on this plant is now most endangered or most enabled to overcome the threats we inherent share living in this thin and fragile biosphere covering our tiny and remote planet we call earth.

"I know that most men -- not only those considered clever, but even those who are very clever and capable of understanding most difficult scientific, mathematical, or philosophic, problems -- can seldom discern even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as obliges them to admit the falsity of conclusions they have formed, perhaps with much difficulty -- conclusions of which they are proud, which they have taught to others, and on which they have built their lives."
-- Leo Nikolaevich Tolstoi (1828-1910) Russian writer, philosopher and social activist. Source: What is Art? (1896).

One of the most positive powerful uses of this innate human talent was exhibited by the Founding Fathers of the United States of America over 200 years ago. Their work was not perfect but they used their education, logic, experience and imaging capacity in bringing forth a nation dedicated to certain universal principles. The imagined the unity of individual states that would be most empowered for expressing and sustaining the idea that all people are created equal and endowed by their creator with the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. To this day most Americans are still willing to “pledge allegiance ” to a government “with liberty and justice for all”.

At this time in human history our greatest weakness as a nation is our inability to imagine this very ideal translated to the global level in the form of a world federation government with democratically made and enforced laws, applied equally to all, and protective of a certain set of inalienable human rights (see Universal Declaration of Human Rights).
The most convincing rational for the creation of such a wise global vision and unifying democratic international institution can be found in reading the original ‘The Federalist Papers’ within this context.

From any comprehensive look at the destructive forces all people and all nations face, from war, terrorism, genocide, WMD, pandemics, climate change, crime or economic instability it becomes unmistakably clear that the only means of maximizing both our freedom and our security, is accepting our global interdependence and creating a federal government that enables us to effectively reduce or prevent such threats and to more effectively deal with those threats that we cannot prevent.

EXAMPLES: If one still doubts the human brains capacity to believe anything, the following examples should persuade them.

Not long after the mass murder of Americans on September 11, 2001 a survey of Muslims in the middle east indicated that nearly 70% believed that Israel played some role in planning and execution of that infamous murderous ‘airliner turned WMD’ attack.
Then, within two years a survey of U.S. citizens indicated that over 70% of Americans believed Saddam Hussein had something to do with the planning and execution of that same attack. Even today it is far to easy to find thoughtful intelligent people from a wide political spectrum who believe 9-11 was a ‘false fag’ attack, planned and/or allowed by the Bush Administration. As any politically astute person will acknowledge there is no shortage of conspiracy theories wherever you find ‘thoughtful’ people.

Understanding the threat of terrorism and particularly the growing threat of biological WMD is essential to protecting our freedoms, our national security, our prosperity and even our collective civilization or human existence. Ignorance and false beliefs regarding biological weapons capacities are rampant on all sides of the political spectrum.

In January 2005, former heart surgeon and US Senate Majority leader Bill Frist told an audience at the World Economic Forum,"The greatest existential threat we have in the world today is biological." Then Heather Wokusch, author of The Progressives' Handbook writes “What nonsense.” Then quotes what Milton Leitenberg, senior research scholar at the University of Maryland, observed in a February 2006 Los Angeles Times article, "Is bioterrorism a greater existential threat than global climate change, global poverty levels, wars and conflicts, nuclear proliferation, ocean-quality deterioration, deforestation, desertification, depletion of freshwater aquifiers or the balancing of population growth and food production? Is it likely to kill more people than the more mundane scourges of AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria, measles and cholera, which kill more than 11 million people each year?”

It sounds entirely unlikely that neither Ms. Wokusch or Mr. Leitenberg, understand the capacity of weaponized smallpox that was genetically engineered by the Soviets to kill over 90% of those infected. Nuture’s version of smallpox is only about three of every hundred people it infects yet had the capacity to kill more people in the last century than all the wars, revolutions, murders and genocides combined.

2 through 7 will soon follow.

Obama apology to Muslim world warrented.

2009-02-01T13:22:00.000-08:00

Jeffrey Kuhner’s list of positive things the US had done to save, protect and improve the lives of Muslims is impressive and I’m sure incomplete (Lethal Olive Branch, 2-1-09. For instance, there was the US support of the UN’s global smallpox eradication campaign that saved more Muslims lives than all other constructive US efforts combined.
But like a father who provides important comforts for his family such noble behavior doesn’t excuse the occasion wife and child beatings that occur because he assumes he is entitled to an occasional abuse of power.
There are in fact tens of millions of Muslims who have had relatives killed, abused or permanently displaced because of both direct and indirect U.S. “aggressive diplomacy” and militarized foreign policy. Obama’s apology to them and the vast majority of Muslims to which we have meant no harm is hardly “pathetic”.
Kuhner’s refusal to consider the other long and often valid list of grievances the Muslim world has toward our nation’s actions is lethally foolish. Kuhner either forgets, never learned, or simply refuses to acknowledge our nations documented support of Saddam Hussein’s criminal mass murder of Iranians using poison gas and intelligence reports that former US Administrations helped provide. Or, the 500,000 Iraqi death toll from US enforced UN sanctions following the first Gulf war. Then there are the deaths of 90,000 innocent Iraqis and the displacement of nearly 2 million more as a direct result of our invasion of Iraq under the pretext of WMD and other stated American self interests such as ‘stabilizing’ Iraq or ensuring our access to Middle East oil.
Mr. Kuhner is wrong stating that “we know: the US does not owe the Muslim world an apology”. We owe them an apology and a lot more. And, contrary to Kuhner’s views we will need to work on our own flaws as well working with the Majority of Muslims in correcting the flaws in their political leaders that our nation has supported without question in the past.
We are not “in a war against radical Islam” as Kuhner concludes. We are in a global campaign to replace the insanity of war with the profoundly acceptable principle that helped create our own nation -- The civilized idea that ‘rule of law’ is supreme over both the ‘law of force’ or the ‘tyranny of the majority’.
President Obama may be making mistakes but his apology to the Muslim world wasn’t one of them.

Adam Smith

2009-01-30T15:01:00.000-08:00

"Every man, as long as he does not violate the laws of justice, is left
perfectly free to pursue his own interest his own way, and to bring both
his industry and capital into competition with those of any other man
or order of men."
-- Adam Smith
(1723-1790) Scottish philosopher and economist 1776
Source: Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith, 1776

Justice between people is essential for maintaining freedom and security. Justice essentially represents our interdependence. And justice is not just in the eye of the beholder. It must be an integral part of government at every level for freedom and security to be sustainable.

Dual use technology unstoppable. Gambling and Cyber training

2009-01-02T16:14:00.000-08:00

London Daily Telegraph
January 2, 2009
Pg. 11

Al-Qaeda Using Gambling Websites To Launder Money, Says Terror Expert

By Thomas Harding, Defence Correspondent

Islamic terrorist networks are using gambling websites to launder money, according to security analysts.

Terrorism experts warned the security services that the internet is increasingly being used to train terrorists and raise money and has become the primary medium for promoting radical Islam.

Al-Qaeda wants to create an "online university of jihad'' that is recruiting and training potential terrorists in Britain without them having to risk travelling to camps in Pakistan, they said.

The terrorist network has also used computer experts to develop encryption software, known as Mujahideen Secrets 2, to allow militants to communicate by email without fear of interception by intelligence services.

Speaking at a select conference on the terrorist threat to Britain, experts from Jane's Intelligence Group said an online community was growing with younger and more impressionable people inadvertently sponsoring terrorism.

Terry Pattar, a specialist in counter-terrorism with Jane's Strategic Advisory Services, said: "Al-Qaeda want to create a university of jihad online, both in a spiritual and financial sense.

"They want a community that can carry out attacks without having to travel abroad for training.''

He said the internet had been used to raise funds for Afghan terrorists and online gambling sites had been used to launder the money.

Youngsters are invited on to security-protected areas after they have been recruited by "proving themselves on online forums''. Analysts are encouraging moderate Muslims to enter the online discussion sites to dismiss the extremists' arguments that gain popularity among the young.

Security sources have told The Daily Telegraph that they are fighting a new battle against al-Qaeda on the internet.

The fight against extremists was one of "ideas, not weapons and a campaign of internet, not training camps'', an intelligence source said.

He described their target as "a 17-year-old who has no criminal record, who sees images on a screen, talks to his friends but never touches a terrorist''.

Terrorist tactics online include the work of a specialist group calling itself the Al Ansar Media Battalion. It posts videos of American and British troops being blown up to "make people here feel they are taking part in what is going on over there'', Mr Pattar said.

Terror groups in Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan continue to use Google Maps as an information resource for targeting.

An insurgent sniper called Juba, who claimed to have killed 140 US soldiers, is said to have a substantial following under the name Baghdad Sniper on the Facebook social networking website. He is thought to have been killed by coalition forces.

The European Commission's anti-terrorism unit has promised to tighten legislation across the Continent in an attempt to target the grooming of young Muslims for terrorism over the internet.

Under the EU proposals, there would be a criminal offence of "public provocation to commit a terrorist offence'' which would include "the distribution, or otherwise making available, of a message to the public, with the intent to incite'' acts of terrorism.

The planned offence would carry a minimum jail term across the continent. Legislation already exists in Britain to jail for up to seven years those who incite terrorism over the internet.

*****End of News story -- Trilemma man's response below****
Even if the EU were actually able to control internet communications within its juristiction without effective global control terrorists will continue to use the world wide web to train and finance their mass murdering and destructive capacity.

World Government means less government

2008-12-09T20:15:00.000-08:00

If conservatives want less government they should take a serious look at world federation. Our government doesn't have the resources or the structural capacity to protect us against terrorism, pandemics, climate change, recession/depression, or international crimes... no matter how big it gets trying to do so.

A world federation would have the potential to prevent or stop threats where they originate and deal more effectively with the consequences that cannot be stopped.

From the global eradication of smallpox to protecting our global life support system, every country in the world must adhere to specific global standards and rules of global cooperation.

"the U.S. is not an independent country"

2008-12-09T20:07:00.000-08:00

Former Treasury official (and now columnist) Paul Craig Roberts recently noted "Financially the U.S. is not an independent country... the U.S. is bankrupt."

World at Risk report summary recommendations

2008-12-03T17:58:00.000-08:00

“World at Risk: The Report of the Commission on the Prevention of WMD Proliferation and Terrorism” select excerpts and [personal comments]. The full report can be read or downloaded at: http://www.preventwmd.com/report/
PREFACE excerpts:
The United States still wields enormous power of the traditional kind, but traditional power is less effective than it used to be. In today’s world, individuals anywhere on the planet connect instantly with one another and with information. Money is moved, transactions are made, information is shared, instructions are issued, and attacks are unleashed with a keystroke. Weapons of tremendous destructive capability can be developed or acquired by those without access to an industrial base or even an economic base of any kind, and those weapons can be used to kill thousands of people and disrupt vital financial, communications, and transportation systems, which are easy to attack and hard to defend. All these factors have made nation-states less powerful and more vulnerable relative to the terrorists, who have no national base to defend and who therefore cannot be deterred through traditional means. One of the purposes of this report is to set forth honestly and directly, for the consideration of the American people, the threat our country faces if terrorists acquire weapons of mass destruction.
[no one in the world is safe]
It is our hope to break the all-too-familiar cycle in which disaster strikes and a commission is formed to report to us about what our government should have known and done to keep us safe. This time we do know. We know the threat we face. We know that our margin of safety is shrinking, not growing. And we know what we must do to counter the risk. There is no excuse now for allowing domestic partisanship or international rivalries to prevent or delay the actions that must be taken. We need unity at all levels—nationally, locally, and among people all across the globe. There is still time to defend ourselves, if we act with the urgency called for by the nature of the threat that confronts us. Sounding that call for urgent action is the purpose of this report.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY excerpts:
…unless the world community acts decisively and with great urgency, it is more likely than not that a weapon of
mass destruction will be used in a terrorist attack somewhere in the world by the end of 2013.
…terrorists are more likely to be able to obtain and use a biological weapon than a nuclear weapon.
…“The risk of a nuclear weapon being used today is growing, not receding.” Sam Nunn
No mission could be timelier. The simple reality is that the risks that confront us today are evolving faster than our multilayered responses.
U.S. policy and strategy have made progress, they have not kept pace with the growing risks. In the area of counterterrorism, our government has innovated and implemented new initiatives since 9/11, but its focus has been mainly limited to defense, intelligence, and homeland security programs and operations. The next administration
needs to go much further, using the tools of “soft power” to communicate effectively about American intentions and to build grassroots social and economic institutions that will discourage radicalism and undercut the terrorists in danger spots around the world—especially in Pakistan…
…The Commission believes that the United States must place a greater emphasis on the prevention side of the equation…Only by elevating the priority of preventing bioterrorism will it be possible to substantially improve U.S. and global biosecurity.

RECOMMENDATION 1: [Focus on domestic control issues helpful but inadequate].

RECOMMENDATION 2: The United States should undertake a series of mutually reinforcing measures at the international level to prevent biological weapons proliferation and terrorism:
(1) press for an international conference of countries with major biotechnology industries to promote biosecurity;
(2) conduct a global assessment of biosecurity risks [this must include natures diseases as well as bioterrorist agents. Such an assessment will verify the need for raising global health standards as a means of dampening both the likely spread of natural or terrorist initiated pandemics.]
(3) strengthen global disease surveillance networks, [this holds greatest promise for establishing a global network of basic health care clinics and services as a means of early detection of outbreaks from any source.]
(4) propose a new action plan for achieving universal adherence to and effective national implementation of the Biological Weapons Convention, for adoption at the next review conference in 2011.
[International cooperation is essential but inherently lacking given expansive characteristics of biotechnology and powerlessness of international institutions. Trying to force ‘adherence’ to any standards will not be met with appreciation or voluntary compliance. What then? Sanctions which are more deadly than war…and actually contribute to conditions helpful to terrorists and natures pathogens alike?]]

RECOMMENDATION 3: The United States should work internationally toward strengthening the nonproliferation regime, reaffirming the vision of a world free of nuclear weapons by
(1) imposing a range of penalties for NPT violations and withdrawal from the NPT that shift the burden of
proof to the state under review for noncompliance;
(2) ensuring access to nuclear fuel, at market prices to the extent possible, for non-nuclear states that agree not to develop sensitive fuel cycle capabilities and are in full compliance with international
obligations;
(3) strengthening the International Atomic Energy Agency, to include identifying the limitations to
its safeguarding capabilities, and providing the agency with the resources and authorities needed to meet its current and expanding mandate;
(4) promoting the further development and effective implementation of counterproliferation initiatives
such as the Proliferation Security Initiative and the Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism;
(5) orchestrating consensus that there will be no new states, including Iran and North Korea, possessing uranium enrichment or plutonium reprocessing capability;
(6) working in concert with others to do everything possible to promote and maintain a moratorium
on nuclear testing;
(7) working toward a global agreement on the definition of “appropriate” and “effective” nuclear security
and accounting systems as legally obligated under United Nations Security Council Resolution 1540; and
(8) discouraging, to the extent possible, the use of financial incentives in the promotion of civil nuclear power.
[There is some hope that the world and reduce the threat of nuclear weapons but without US leadership in disarming nuclear capacity there is little chance the world will follow. One hold out puts all at risk.]

RECOMMENDATION 4: The new President should undertake a comprehensive review of cooperative nuclear security programs, and should develop a global strategy that accounts for the worldwide expansion of the threat and the restructuring of our relationship with Russia from that of donor and recipient to a cooperative partnership. [will do nothing to reduce bio threat…may actually increase it]

RECOMMENDATION 5: As a top priority, the next administration must stop the Iranian and North Korean nuclear weapons programs. In the case of Iran, this requires the permanent cessation
of all of Iran’s nuclear weapons–related efforts. In the case of North Korea, this requires the complete abandonment and dismantlement of all nuclear weapons and existing nuclear programs. If, as appears likely, the next administration seeks to stop these programs through direct diplomatic engagement with the
Iranian and North Korean governments, it must do so from a position of strength, emphasizing both the benefits to them of abandoning their nuclear weapons programs and the enormous costs of failing to do so. Such engagement must be backed by the credible threat of direct action in the event that diplomacy fails.

RECOMMENDATION 6: The next President and Congress should implement a comprehensive policy toward Pakistan that works with Pakistan and other countries to
(1) eliminate terrorist safe havens through military, economic, and diplomatic means;
(2) secure nuclear and biological materials in Pakistan;
(3) counter and defeat extremist ideology; and
(4) constrain a nascent nuclear arms race in Asia.

RECOMMENDATION 7: The next U.S. administration should work with the Russian government on initiatives to jointly reduce the danger of the use of nuclear and biological weapons, including by
(1) extending some of the essential verification and monitoring provisions of the Strategic Arms Reduction
Treaty that are scheduled to expire in 2009;
(2) advancing cooperation programs such as the Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism, United Nations Security Council Resolution 1540, and the Proliferation Security Initiative;
(3) sustaining security upgrades at sensitive sites in Russia and elsewhere, while finding common ground on further reductions in stockpiles of excess highly enriched uranium;
(4) jointly encouraging China, Pakistan, and India to announce a moratorium on the further production of nuclear fissile materials for nuclear weapons and to reduce existing nuclear military deployments and stockpiles; and
(5) offering assistance to other nations, such as Pakistan and India, in achieving nuclear confidence-building
measures similar to those that the United States and the USSR followed for most of the Cold War.

RECOMMENDATION 8: The President should create a more efficient and effective policy coordination structure by designating a White House principal advisor for WMD proliferation and terrorism and restructuring the National Security Council and Homeland Security Council.

RECOMMENDATION 9: Congress should reform its oversight both structurally and substantively to better address intelligence, homeland security, and crosscutting 21st-century national security missions such as the prevention of weapons of mass destruction proliferation and terrorism.

RECOMMENDATION 10: Accelerate integration of effort among the counterproliferation, counterterrorism, and law enforcement communities to address WMD proliferation and terrorism issues; strengthen expertise in the nuclear and biological fields; prioritize pre-service and in-service training and retention of people with critical scientific, language, and foreign area skills; and ensure that the threat posed by biological weapons remains among the highest national intelligence priorities for collection and analysis.

RECOMMENDATION 11: The United States must build a national security workforce for the 21st century. [clear need to increase funding and attention to science education and training]

RECOMMENDATION 12: U.S. counterterrorism strategy must more effectively counter the ideology behind WMD terrorism. The United States should develop a more coherent and sustained strategy and capabilities for global ideological engagement to prevent future recruits, supporters, and facilitators. [Soft power of development is vital and yet will remain under funded. Great rhetoric…pathetic follow up.]
Executive Summary: While the United States has had success in eliminating a number of terrorist leaders and foiling planned attacks, our government has invested less effort, let alone enjoyed success, at preventing the global
recruitment and ideological commitment of extremists who might seek to use nuclear or biological weapons against America or its allies. These efforts demand an approach far different from that used to capture or kill terrorists and facilitators. They require the tools of soft power, which include the ability to communicate persuasively about American intentions and to assist in promoting social and economic progress within those countries where the terrorists have a recruiting presence. Government agencies must think creatively to develop and coordinate efforts—ranging from strategic communications to targeted development assistance—to engage those who might otherwise be drawn to terrorist causes.

RECOMMENDATION 13: The next administration must work to openly and honestly engage the American citizen, encouraging a participatory approach to meeting the challenges of the new century. [This will work until the first bioweapons strike…and then its every man and family for themselves in the ensuing chaos. The U.S. military’s primary role in such an event will be crowd control, disease containment and clean up. ]

Bioterrorism within 5 years.

2008-12-02T07:05:00.001-08:00

A new report from the congressionally mandated bi partisan Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation and Terrorism (created last spring as one of the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission) has just concluded in the opening sentence of the executive summary:
“Unless the world community acts decisively and with great urgency, it is more likely than not that a weapon of mass destruction will be used in a terrorist attack somewhere in the world by the end of 2013.”
The final result of this six-month study headed by former Senators Bob Graham (D-FL), and Jim Talent (R-MO) correctly faults the Bush administration for failing to devote the same degree of high-level attention and resources to the threat of bioterrorism as it has to nuclear threats. But, then panel’s 13 recommendations falter by suggesting it’s possible to adequately secure dangerous pathogens and tighten oversight of high-containment laboratories by strengthening international organizations. Even with unlimited access to every nation, every laboratory and every cave in the world international organizations will have difficulty in stopping any determined bioterrorist group. Such unlimited access wouldn’t be accepted by every nation and even if it were it still wouldn’t protect us against natural occurring biological pathogens of equal or greater capacity for mass human death and suffering. With the limited resources and space needed to create a biological WMD it’s questionable if even a Nazi like intrusive presence of weapons inspectors would be able to stop a cleaver and committed group from creating the perfect biological weapon capable of targeting a specific ethnic group sharing a similar genetic profile.
The panel’s recommendations for improved bioforensic capabilities and strengthening international organizations would be useful in responding to biological mass murder, but ‘preventing’ a bioterrorist event will require two other approaches not mentioned by the Commission.
First, we must stop making so many enemies in the world. This will require powerful international institutions capable of creating a climate of justice, shared security and protection of basic human rights listed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Such an environment would give poor people as well as the rich a direct incentive and the capacity to reporting any suspicious actors or actions.
Second, new international institutions endowed with the capacity of enforcing globally agreed upon standards of control, intelligence gathering and incident reporting must be created. Without adequate funding and enforcement capacity, such institutions would be as anemic as the UN is today in stopping transnational threats.
In summary, we need to make more friends, less enemies, and globally enforceable world laws.

Terrorists by sea?

2008-11-28T14:23:00.001-08:00

The recent terrorist attack in India may have been launched by terrorists entering India by boat. The US coast guard has strict rules requiring any ship entering a US port to give at least 4 days notice before docking but hijacking an approved ship would be a means for any terrorist group to over come this barrier. Given the rash of criminal hijacking of oil tankers and other seagoing cargo ships off the coast of Somalia recently this is not beyond imagination. However, according to international maritime standards every ship has a 'panic button' the ship captain can hit at first sign of any ship takeover. If just one nation didn't agree to follow this rule or failed to enforce it...all US ports would be vulnerable.

Bush Doctrine is not Natural Law

2008-10-10T08:59:00.000-07:00

Lamont Colucci’s creative spin on “The Bush Doctrine” (Washington Times, Oct. 10, 2008) is more than revisionist history of Bush’s policy evolution before and after September 11. Colucci’s basic tenant is inherently flawed. Nature’s only real laws are gravity, survival of the fittest, and ‘every action has an opposite and equal reaction’. If America or humanity continues to adhere to these laws our nation and our species is doomed to the same path of extinction that 99.99% of all other life forms that have ever existed have followed. We repeatedly break the laws of gravity. We can also resist nature’s law of forceful dominance and military retaliation.
Our Founding Fathers created our great republic on the foundation the ‘rule of law’ but they also made some basic mistakes. To be effective the Rule of Law must have laws that treat all people equally. Laws made and enforce by a democratic process and laws that are consistently protective of a basic set of inalienable rights. Rights that are not dictated by age, skin color, religion, kings, politicians or courts.
Unfortunately Bush’s invasion of Iraq in 2003 conformed with a natural “law of force” and this was horrifically contrary to the rule of law. And invasive pre-emptive military force is not “liberty under law” or, as Colucci claims “the natural extension of the creator’s wishes”. Shock and Awe war is not an extension of the creator’s wishes. War is the opposite of law.
The Global War against Terrorism that Bush officially launched after 9-11 reinforced the global use of ‘war’ (military violence that accepts the death of innocence as collateral damage) as a legitimate problem solver. But, war is never a “non-negotiable demand of human dignity”. Accepting the murder of innocent civilians as collateral damage (even if not intentional) as a price to pay for defending American freedoms, particularly our freedom to buy and burn foreign oil, is not natural law, God’s law or the rule of law. It’s business as usual that leads to the loss of civilization as we know it…and eventually the extinction of our species.
If Bush had launched a global police action against the mass murderers who attacked us on 9-11, with collateral damage anywhere, an unacceptable loss, then Colucci may have had a point. And the evolution of Bush’s failed doctrines as almost brought us this point. Our military leaders finally figured out that we cannot “kill our way to victory” in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan or the global war on terror. And, the U.S. Army has begun to implement it’s new core mission of nation building and our military forces are now being used for building schools, digging wells and staffing health clinics. Military force may still be used but not in the context of war. Our police officers and swat teams also use military weapons and tactics. For them accepting collateral damage is unthinkable. When civians are killed police are held accountable under the force of law. Until we apply the same standards globally, we are on the path of extinction…which is still a valid aspect of nature’s law.

Tax flight from Developing nations nearly $500 billion a year

2008-10-08T22:19:00.001-07:00

Tax flight in a growing loss of financing in developing countries now estimated at approximated 500 billion US dollars a year. Because of in adequate foreign aid developing countries are particularly dependent on domestic resources for their development. Combating tax flight must be tackled within the context of financing for development and addressing global threats to our own national security. Tax evasion and tax avoidance strategies are complex and a variety of actors are involved, both in the developing countries and at the international level.
Measures to combat tax flight unlikely to be effective without uniform global regulations and enforcement. If just one nation creates a tax haven any global tax scheme becomes ineffective.

It's our belief in independence stupid!

2007-04-14T15:03:00.000-07:00

Victor David Hanson made some excellent points regarding the links between our dependence on oil and a list of serious problems in the Middle East that are exacerbated by such dependence (It’s the oil Stupid, 4-14-07)

Unfortunately, Mr. Hanson is way off the mark when he states, “If the U.S. could curb its voracious foreign oil purchases … the world price might return to below $40 a barrel.” A “decline” in US oil demand wouldn’t “dry up the oil profits of those in the Middle East” because of the increasing demand of all the other oil dependent nations like China, India and Russia as well as the nations within the EU.

Hanson is correct in saying “Its’ the oil, stupid” and he should be commended for advocating we adopt all the practical and affordable means that are possible for weaning ourselves from oil dependence. Hanson is simply mistaken however, in thinking that that by doing so our security would then be independent from the practices and problems of other nations, even our allies.

There are any number of threats we face that will still require global enforceable standards in other arenas such as health, environment, banking, technology controls and human rights protections.

But, Yes! Let’s get off oil and lead by example instead of arrogance.

Fiscal irresponbility greater threat than Bin Laden.

2007-04-03T17:53:00.000-07:00

Nearly 6 months before 9-11 The Hart Ruddman Commission (Bipartisan presidential commission looking at national security threats in the 21^st century) reported that ‘American should prepare to die in large numbers on American soil’. They also suggested we create a Department of Homeland Defense which was also ignored for months after 9-11.

One of the most surprising findings of the commission’s first report was its belief that ‘economic instability’ was the second greatest threat to US security behind terrorism.

Now the U.S. Comptroller General David Walker, head of the Government Accounting office (the investigative arm of the US Congress) says "The most serious threat to the United States is not someone hiding in a cave in Afghanistan or Pakistan…but our own fiscal irresponsibility." Recently featured on CBS “60 minutes” produced by Andy Court this interview is a must see! Walker believes nothing less than the survival of our republic is at stake and predicts "catastrophic consequences" for our nation if we don't do something now.

To watch the 11 minute segment go to:

http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/i_video/main500251.shtml?id=2534935n

I wonder if Mr. Walker realizes that one of Bin Laden’s primary goals was to break the US economically. He must be thrilled to know that he has powerful allies in bankrupting the US. The costs of Bush’s war in Iraq, our failure to invest in real prevention efforts related to health, education, and environmental protection…only hasten the day.

Hybrid Peace Corps/Marine Corps can win in Iraq?

2007-03-27T22:32:00.000-07:00

Normally I rely on science and statistics to formulate my opinions. Now I gravely risk using my gut…and scattered snippets in the media … to predict a possible (if not likely) success in Iraq as a result of the Bush Administrations new ‘troop Surge’. Technically, it won’t be ‘the surge’ that makes the difference. Instead it will be how both the old and the new troops conduct their new operations more like the ‘Peace Corps’ than the Marine Corps.

Today Senator McCain stated in congressional testimony that there are 3 essential elements of effective counterterrorism now being applied by US troops in Iraq: Protecting civilians, waging economic development, and increasing political opportunities. Having an additional 30,000 troops on hand could be helpful if they have been properly trained and are adequately managed to truly operate as police and loan officers, teachers and health providers instead of ‘shock and awe’/ ‘search and destroy’ units.

It is just such police & nation building actions that will win over the Iraqi people. Striving to achieve US ‘military’ objectives against insurgents and terrorists just wasn’t working. In fact, it only made matters worse. Waging an effective counterterrorism occupation is far different than waging a war.

Now, most Iraqi’s hate the terrorists and insurgents as much or more than they hate the US occupation. They are experiencing first hand the lethal and destructive will of a few Islamist groups vs the more constructive will (but often destructive means) of the US military. Most Muslims in Iraq do not want a permanent war or even a civil war. The willingness of Al Qaida, Iran Shit’tes or Iraqi Sunnis to perpetuate a war will eventually work to turn most Iraqi’s against them.

What most liberals opposing the surge fail or refuse to accept is that the Bush Administration’s new approach to winning hearts and minds in Iraq is essentially a liberal foreign policy. Nation building, protecting innocent citizens, improving economic development, building schools, health clinics and helping political groups are all high on most liberal policy agendas. We just don’t want the military doing it. Unfortunately, Bush’s neocons have screwed it up so bad…that this is one place in the world where a hybrid Peace Corps/Marine Corps is now needed.

It’s been said that “You can always count on politicians to do the right thing. But only after exhausting every other possibility” at least twice. The Bush administration has repeated this failing scenario several times. But perhaps they are now, finally on the right track. I am one liberal that wants to give the ‘surge’ a chance. After hearing McCain, and Petreaus, and some isolated media stories about a growing Iraqi hatred for insecurity I’m at least open to the possibility of success. But I’m still not betting on it.

Four steps to defeat terrorism

2007-03-27T21:12:00.000-07:00

Four steps to defeat terrorism

1. Recognize that ‘terrorism’ is a tactic…not something you can actually fight. It is a violent and lethal means that groups use to achieve their political aims. Our violent and lethal response to terrorism (WAR) is what terrorists want … for three specific reasons.

A. Our “waging war” against them legitimizes their ‘warrior’ status.

B. Our ‘waging war’ proves that we don’t really value ‘the rule of law’… or protecting human rights … because waging war violates both.

C. Our willing acceptance of ‘collateral damage’ as the price of waging war helps terrorist’s propaganda efforts and improves their prospect for recruiting.

2. Make friends not enemies. International cooperation, intelligence and economic burden sharing are key to finding and stopping terrorists before they can commit mass murder. International police and intelligence work creates the most effective "net" for stopping the flow of money, people and materials critical to terrorist operations.

Nation building and investments in essential human needs such as health, education, water and sanitation create a human/social/economic environment does two things:

A. It lessens the chaos and lawlessness that terrorists networks need to survive and thrive.

B. It proves to others that we value their lives more than our own wealth which builds loyalty and respect far faster than shock and awe.

3. Chose the force of law over the law of force for solving problems. Mass murderers deserve justice…not warrior status. And the innocent deserve protection…not fear of both terrorists and governments.

4 Divide our enemies. All terrorist groups are different. It would be a grievous error to lump Al-Qaida, Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Mahdi Army… all together as "Islamofascist". Each may threaten our national security interests in some way, but we need not force them to work together. Each have different goals, operate differently, and come from different places and cultures. We can offer each group political dialogue or the force of law. Some, like Al-Qaida, may resist dialogue or international law. But then we will have the world on our side (as we did immediately after 9-11) and that is what we will need to defeat them.

What Would You Do if You Were Iran?

2007-03-27T20:08:00.000-07:00

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20070305_what_would_you_do_if_you_were_iran/

What Would You Do if You Were Iran?

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20070305_what_would_you_do_if_you_were_iran/

Posted on Mar 5, 2007

By Tad Daley

Any New Yorker will tell you that the best views of Manhattan are to be found not on the island, but from across the water. The most sublime commentator on the workings of “democracy in America,” it is often argued, was not from America, but Europe—Alexis de Tocqueville, in his majestic work by that very title. The Hubble Space Telescope has snapped many breathtaking photographs of wondrous spiral galaxies millions of light years away, but no human has ever held such a perspective on our own spiral galaxy, the Milky Way, because no human (nor even any human artifact) has ever viewed it from the outside.

The greatest insight into a difficult and complex matter often comes from an outside observer. In late February the International Atomic Energy Agency announced that Iran had accelerated rather than suspended its uranium enrichment activities. Vice President Dick Cheney, speaking from Australia, immediately warned Tehran, “All options are still on the table.” Two days later Cheney suddenly showed up, publicly unannounced, in Pakistan, setting off a flurry of talk radio and Internet speculation that the true purpose of the visit was to negotiate flyover rights for an impending air assault on Iran. In response, an Iranian deputy foreign minister stated, “We’re prepared for any situation—even for war.”

To the dismay and astonishment of the peace and progressive Democratic base that swept the party back into power last November, the three early front-runners for the 2008 presidential nomination—Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama and former Sen. John Edwards—have consistently expressed a similar hawkishness on Iran. Clinton and Edwards have even uttered the identical “all options on the table” phrase!

Why is Iran so intent on pursuing its atomic ambitions, despite such naked saber rattling from the planet’s overweening military leviathan? The most candid, unvarnished answer to that question has recently come not from any Iranian or American but from someone viewing the impasse from across the water. From Europe. From the outside.
Vladimir Putin.

“We are witnessing an almost uncontained hyper-use of military force in international relations,” the Russian president said in Munich last month, referring unambiguously to the United States. “Nobody feels secure anymore,” and America’s adversaries “feel cornered.” Of course, said Putin, “such a policy stimulates an arms race. The force’s dominance inevitably encourages a number of countries to acquire weapons of mass destruction” (emphasis added).

Putin said what no Iranian officials will say, because if they did they would have to admit that they are seeking not just nuclear electricity but nuclear weapons. Putin said what no Bush administration officials will say, because if they did they would have to admit that all their efforts to, as President Bush put it in 2002, “free the world from weapons of mass destruction in the hands of those who hate freedom” have had precisely the opposite effect.

Make no mistake. The repugnant comments by Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, about the Jewish past and the Israeli future deserve to be renounced by any right-thinking citizen of the world. But Ahmadinejad’s true influence among the mullahs has always been limited, and is now, by all accounts, in free fall. Regardless of who is really running the show, might not Iran have some legitimate national security interests in its own self-preservation?

Consider the world as seen from Tehran in the past half-decade. George W. Bush announced a new doctrine of “pre-emption,” wherein the U.S. may see fit to launch regime-changing invasions of states that Washington, in its own subjective judgment, concludes might pose a threat, someday, to American national security. He declared that of all the odious regimes on the planet, three alone constitute an “axis of evil.” Breaking with the entire Cold War legacy of mutual nuclear deterrence, he issued a new nuclear doctrine, one that contemplated nuclear attacks on non-nuclear states (in explicit violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty). He actually named seven states (including Iran) as possible targets of a pre-emptive American nuclear first strike. Then he launched his first pre-emptive war against the country next door to Iran, decapitating its regime and driving its leader first into a spider hole in the ground and then to the gallows.

And after all that, Tehran finds itself surrounded on four sides by American military power—Iraq to the west, Afghanistan to the east, U.S. bases in Turkey and Central Asia to the north, and the mighty U.S. Navy in the Persian Gulf to the south (which just recently doubled its presence there).

Putin did not explain exactly how nuclear weapons could serve to defend a country like Iran from an overwhelming American air assault. But the old Cold Warrior surely understands the new model of nuclear deterrence that is emerging in the post-Cold War world—one that could radically transform the 21st century nuclear landscape.

During the Cold War’s long atomic arms race, it became clear that nuclear weapons had little actual military value. It was difficult to conceive of any scenario where the benefits of launching a nuclear weapon could exceed the almost infinite risks. But we needed thousands of nuclear weapons, the argument ran, because the Soviets possessed thousands of nuclear weapons. And they needed them because we had them. Our atomic arsenal deterred them from using theirs, and their atomic arsenal deterred us from using ours. This, of course, was the logic behind “mutually assured destruction,” or MAD—surely the most appropriate acronym in all of human history.

But if a country like Iran manages to acquire a nuclear arsenal, its function will be dramatically different. Iran, of course, cannot hope to defeat the United States in any kind of direct military confrontation. No one can. But Tehran could aspire not to defeat but to deter what must seem to Iranian leaders to be a very real threat of an American military first strike. And to exercise such deterrence, it doesn’t need the capacity to bring about the “assured destruction” of the entire American nation. All it needs is the capability to vaporize an American military base or three in Qatar or Kuwait or Iraq, or an entire aircraft carrier battle group in the Persian Gulf, or even an American city on one coast or the other. It also needs to indicate that it would respond to any attack by employing that capability immediately, before it becomes too late, following the venerable maxim: “Use them or lose them.” This, we learned in recent years from now-elderly Soviet officers who were on the ground during the Cuban missile crisis, is precisely what they were prepared to do at even a hint of an American first strike.

There is, of course, only one thing that can provide Iran with this kind of deterrent capability. Hint: it’s not nuclear electricity.

When Tehran looks west, it sees an Iraq that abandoned its nuclear weapons program, opened itself to unprecedented intrusions on its sovereignty, did not in fact possess any weapons of mass destruction—and got itself invaded for its trouble.

When Tehran looks east, it sees a North Korea that is one of the most desperate countries in the world. Most of its citizens are either languishing in gulags or chronically starving. It is impoverished, puny, a pathetic excuse for a 21st century nation-state. And yet, because it chose an alternate course—constructing a small nuclear arsenal in secret, then whipping back the curtain to reveal that arsenal to the world—it appears to be successfully deterring any kind of military attack from the greatest military juggernaut in human history.

What would you do if you were Iran?

It is true that neither the International Atomic Energy Agency nor American intelligence officials have put forth a shred of evidence indicating that Iran has diverted materials from its nuclear energy activities to a nuclear weapons program. It is also quite possible that Iran might be dissuaded from its nuclear ambitions, in return for an end to U.S. support for internal Iranian groups seeking the violent overthrow of the regime (imagine if Iran were doing that here!), a formal mutual security pact with non-aggression pledges in both directions, and some acknowledgement on our part that the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty doesn’t just impose nonproliferation obligations on them but also disarmament obligations on us.

Instead, astonishingly, with the ceaseless beating of the Iran war drums in the background, the Energy Department on March 2 announced a contract to build a brand-new, ultra-modernized U.S. nuclear warhead—the first in two decades—to ensure the long-term “reliability” of the American nuclear arsenal.

Until more enlightened diplomacy starts emanating from Washington, Tehran will continue its march toward the nuclear Rubicon. The logic of the situation requires it. No rational Iranian defense planner could responsibly recommend anything else.

A Cold War concept that never captured the public imagination quite like MAD was the simple idea of “unacceptable damage.” If a vulnerable nation could obtain the capability to impose unacceptable damage on an adversary, that would probably be enough to cause that adversary to pause, indefinitely, before initiating any kind of war. And the obliteration of an American military base or naval formation or city would clearly seem to qualify as “unacceptable damage” for us. Although “UD” hardly contains the rich acronymphomaniacal irony delivered by MAD, Iran and North Korea may be the first states to base their national security strategies solidly upon it.

There is very little reason to suppose that they will be the last.

Tad Daley is a veteran international policy analyst and nuclear disarmament advocate. He served as a policy aide to the late U.S. Sen. Alan Cranston, D-Calif., and as national issues director for the 2004 presidential campaign of Congressman Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio. He is presently Peace and Disarmament Fellow in the Los Angeles office of Physicians for Social Responsibility, the Nobel laureate anti-nuclear organization. He can be reached at tad@daleyplanet.org.

Terrorized by ‘War on Terror’

2007-03-27T20:00:00.000-07:00

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20070327_terrorized_by_war_on_terror/

Terrorized by ‘War on Terror’

Posted on Mar 27, 2007

By Zbigniew Brzezinski

The “war on terror” has created a culture of fear in America. The Bush administration’s elevation of these three words into a national mantra since the horrific events of 9/11 has had a pernicious impact on American democracy, on America’s psyche and on U.S. standing in the world. Using this phrase has actually undermined our ability to effectively confront the real challenges we face from fanatics who may use terrorism against us.

The damage these three words have done—a classic self-inflicted wound—is infinitely greater than any wild dreams entertained by the fanatical perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks when they were plotting against us in distant Afghan caves. The phrase itself is meaningless. It defines neither a geographic context nor our presumed enemies. Terrorism is not an enemy but a technique of warfare—political intimidation through the killing of unarmed noncombatants.

But the little secret here may be that the vagueness of the phrase was deliberately (or instinctively) calculated by its sponsors. Constant reference to a “war on terror” did accomplish one major objective: It stimulated the emergence of a culture of fear. Fear obscures reason, intensifies emotions and makes it easier for demagogic politicians to mobilize the public on behalf of the policies they want to pursue. The war of choice in Iraq could never have gained the congressional support it got without the psychological linkage between the shock of 9/11 and the postulated existence of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. Support for President Bush in the 2004 elections was also mobilized in part by the notion that “a nation at war” does not change its commander in chief in midstream. The sense of a pervasive but otherwise imprecise danger was thus channeled in a politically expedient direction by the mobilizing appeal of being “at war.”

To justify the “war on terror,” the administration has lately crafted a false historical narrative that could even become a self-fulfilling prophecy. By claiming that its war is similar to earlier U.S. struggles against Nazism and then Stalinism (while ignoring the fact that both Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia were first-rate military powers, a status al-Qaida neither has nor can achieve), the administration could be preparing the case for war with Iran. Such war would then plunge America into a protracted conflict spanning Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and perhaps also Pakistan.

The culture of fear is like a genie that has been let out of its bottle. It acquires a life of its own—and can become demoralizing. America today is not the self-confident and determined nation that responded to Pearl Harbor; nor is it the America that heard from its leader, at another moment of crisis, the powerful words “the only thing we have to fear is fear itself”; nor is it the calm America that waged the Cold War with quiet persistence despite the knowledge that a real war could be initiated abruptly within minutes and prompt the death of 100 million Americans within just a few hours. We are now divided, uncertain and potentially very susceptible to panic in the event of another terrorist act in the United States itself.

That is the result of five years of almost continuous national brainwashing on the subject of terror, quite unlike the more muted reactions of several other nations (Britain, Spain, Italy, Germany, Japan, to mention just a few) that also have suffered painful terrorist acts. In his latest justification for his war in Iraq, President Bush even claims absurdly that he has to continue waging it lest al-Qaida cross the Atlantic to launch a war of terror here in the United States.

Such fear-mongering, reinforced by security entrepreneurs, the mass media and the entertainment industry, generates its own momentum. The terror entrepreneurs, usually described as experts on terrorism, are necessarily engaged in competition to justify their existence. Hence their task is to convince the public that it faces new threats. That puts a premium on the presentation of credible scenarios of ever-more-horrifying acts of violence, sometimes even with blueprints for their implementation.

That America has become insecure and more paranoid is hardly debatable. A recent study reported that in 2003, Congress identified 160 sites as potentially important national targets for would-be terrorists. With lobbyists weighing in, by the end of that year the list had grown to 1,849; by the end of 2004, to 28,360; by 2005, to 77,769. The national database of possible targets now has some 300,000 items in it, including the Sears Tower in Chicago and an Illinois apple and pork festival.

Just last week, here in Washington, on my way to visit a journalistic office, I had to pass through one of the absurd “security checks” that have proliferated in almost all the privately owned office buildings in this capital—and in New York City. A uniformed guard required me to fill out a form, show an ID and in this case explain in writing the purpose of my visit. Would a visiting terrorist indicate in writing that the purpose is “to blow up the building”? Would the guard be able to arrest such a self-confessing, would-be suicide bomber? To make matters more absurd, large department stores, with their crowds of shoppers, do not have any comparable procedures. Nor do concert halls or movie theaters. Yet such “security” procedures have become routine, wasting hundreds of millions of dollars and further contributing to a siege mentality.

Government at every level has stimulated the paranoia. Consider, for example, the electronic billboards over interstate highways urging motorists to “Report Suspicious Activity” (drivers in turbans?). Some mass media have made their own contribution. The cable channels and some print media have found that horror scenarios attract audiences, while terror “experts” as “consultants” provide authenticity for the apocalyptic visions fed to the American public. Hence the proliferation of programs with bearded “terrorists” as the central villains. Their general effect is to reinforce the sense of the unknown but lurking danger that is said to increasingly threaten the lives of all Americans.

The entertainment industry has also jumped into the act. Hence the TV serials and films in which the evil characters have recognizable Arab features, sometimes highlighted by religious gestures, that exploit public anxiety and stimulate Islamophobia. Arab facial stereotypes, particularly in newspaper cartoons, have at times been rendered in a manner sadly reminiscent of the Nazi anti-Semitic campaigns. Lately, even some college student organizations have become involved in such propagation, apparently oblivious to the menacing connection between the stimulation of racial and religious hatreds and the unleashing of the unprecedented crimes of the Holocaust.

The atmosphere generated by the “war on terror” has encouraged legal and political harassment of Arab-Americans (generally loyal Americans) for conduct that has not been unique to them. A case in point is the reported harassment of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) for its attempts to emulate, not very successfully, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). Some House Republicans recently described CAIR members as “terrorist apologists” who should not be allowed to use a Capitol meeting room for a panel discussion.

Social discrimination, for example toward Muslim air travelers, has also been its unintended byproduct. Not surprisingly, animus toward the United States even among Muslims otherwise not particularly concerned with the Middle East has intensified, while America’s reputation as a leader in fostering constructive interracial and interreligious relations has suffered egregiously.

The record is even more troubling in the general area of civil rights. The culture of fear has bred intolerance, suspicion of foreigners and the adoption of legal procedures that undermine fundamental notions of justice. Innocent until proven guilty has been diluted if not undone, with some—even U.S. citizens—incarcerated for lengthy periods of time without effective and prompt access to due process. There is no known, hard evidence that such excess has prevented significant acts of terrorism, and convictions for would-be terrorists of any kind have been few and far between. Someday Americans will be as ashamed of this record as they now have become of the earlier instances in U.S. history of panic by the many prompting intolerance against the few.

In the meantime, the “war on terror” has gravely damaged the United States internationally. For Muslims, the similarity between the rough treatment of Iraqi civilians by the U.S. military and of the Palestinians by the Israelis has prompted a widespread sense of hostility toward the United States in general. It’s not the “war on terror” that angers Muslims watching the news on television, it’s the victimization of Arab civilians. And the resentment is not limited to Muslims. A recent BBC poll of 28,000 people in 27 countries that sought respondents’ assessments of the role of states in international affairs resulted in Israel, Iran and the United States being rated (in that order) as the states with “the most negative influence on the world.” Alas, for some that is the new axis of evil!

The events of 9/11 could have resulted in a truly global solidarity against extremism and terrorism. A global alliance of moderates, including Muslim ones, engaged in a deliberate campaign both to extirpate the specific terrorist networks and to terminate the political conflicts that spawn terrorism would have been more productive than a demagogically proclaimed and largely solitary U.S. “war on terror” against “Islamo-fascism.” Only a confidently determined and reasonable America can promote genuine international security which then leaves no political space for terrorism.

Where is the U.S. leader ready to say, “Enough of this hysteria, stop this paranoia”? Even in the face of future terrorist attacks, the likelihood of which cannot be denied, let us show some sense. Let us be true to our traditions.

Zbigniew Brzezinski, national security adviser to President Jimmy Carter, is the author, most recently, of “Second Chance: Three Presidents and the Crisis of American Superpower” (Basic Books).

2006-06-02T18:27:00.000-07:00

Technorati Profile

Iran's biological weapons?

2006-06-01T23:20:00.000-07:00

The U.S. President’s arrogance in dictating nuclear policy to Iran is yet another step towards Armageddon. His ignorance about the likely outcome of such hollow demands is mind-boggling and offensive. Offensive to those who can also be extremely offensive.

Even if our great and powerful nation could actually stop any further nuclear weapons developments in Iran (only in our wildest dreams) it would still be impossible to stop their covert development of biological weapons. Compared to nukes, bioweapons are far cheaper, easier and virtually impossible to detect … until after they are used.

And, the dual use nature of biotechnology dictates that any hopes of halting the proliferation of biological WMD now or in the future is simply wishful thinking. Even the most intrusive police state imaginable would be unable to stop a committed group of graduate level biologists from developing a tool for extremely effective mass murder.

As Emory Reves, perhaps the great post WWII peace and security thinker wrote in his famous book the “Anatomy of Peace” in 1945 “Once the mechanics and the fundamental causes of wars – of all wars – are realized, the futility and childishness of the passionate debates about armament and disarmament must be apparent to all. If human society were organized so that relations between groups and units in contact were regulated by democratically controlled law and legal institutions, then modern science could go ahead, devise and produce the most devastating weapons, and there would be no war. But if we allow sovereign rights to reside in the separate units and groups without regulating their relations by law, then we can prohibit every weapon, even a penknife, and people will beat out each other’s brains with clubs”

Rawanda and Iraq are proving Emory Reves to be extremely prophetic.

US threats of military strikes against Iran now can only justify Iran’s use of preemptive strikes against the US or Israel any time in the near future. Hitting them before then only postpones the day of Islamic pay back.

There is another path we could take away from this march toward endless war. Rather than trying to mobilize other nations of the world to stand against Iran’s nuclear weapons development the Bush Administration should be rallying the world against the possible genocidal intent of Iran’s leading fanatic. If this man insists on voicing the violent destruction of Israel or the Jewish people, then he should be indicted for instigating genocide and every measure that would not involve collateral damage should be used to bring him, and any others like him, before the International Criminal Court. If incitement to commit genocide is not within the ICC’s jurisdiction then the US should promise to join the ICC if it can be quickly approved.

Human rights must take actual precedent over national sovereignty. That means all basic human rights (see Universal Declaration of Human Rights) over every nation’s sovereignty (see US Sovereignty…an outdated imaginary idea).

Woody Allen once said something to the effect that ‘Humanity stands at a cross roads. One road leads to utter hopelessness and despair. The other, to complete annihilation. I hope we have the wisdom to chose the right path.’ Woody’s insight aptly applies to the dilemma we now face with Iran.

Either we can chose the law of force and risk Iran choosing the same. Or we can chose the Rule of Law and hope that other nations will join with us. That might seem like a hopeless path…but I assure you, we want to avoid the other path like the plague. Literally.

Armageddon or Civilization?

2006-05-09T20:37:00.000-07:00

Dr. John Hagee’s belief that an “Armageddon” “conflict will probably occur during this generation” is a self fulfilling prophecy.

One can immediately dismiss his claim that “Biblical prophecy says that Russia will put its arms around the Islamic nations”. No where in God’s inspired bible is “Russia” or “Islamic states” written. Interpreting scripture to justify war is nothing new…but it is still profoundly dangerous.

Urging Congress to “help” Israel in a “military preemptive strike” to take out Iran’s nuclear capabilities might succeed but that would only generate unprecedented levels of hatred in the Muslim world against Christian and Jewish fundamentalists here in the US and Israel. Their war planners would undoubtedly turn next to engineering sophisticated biological weapons for which there would be no civilized defense. And civilization as we know it would end.

Israel’s strike against Iraqi nuclear facilities 2 decades ago didn’t really buy “the world another 20 years of freedom”. It just drove those wishing to develop nuclear weapons into secretive developments, scattered and deep underground. Thus, even out best intelligence had no clue India and Pakistan had developed nuclear capacities until after ut was too late.

The more Christians and Jews hype and justify war against “Islamofacists” the more fundamentalist Muslims are hyped and justified in waging war against the west. Somewhere in the Bible I remember the call to “love your enemy”. I don’t think ‘loving to kill them’ was really what Jesus had in mind. Those who live by the nuclear sword shall likely die by it.

War is uncivilzed.

2006-03-23T18:51:00.000-08:00

Tony Blair’s claim that we are engaged in “a clash about civilization” not “between” civilizations is profoundly correct… but not how he intended it. In reality it is a clash between different levels of barbarism, believing they are being civilized.

Civilization exists where just laws rein supreme. Laws that are made and enforced by a democratic process, applied equally to all, and most importantly, protective of a certain set of inalienable human rights. Civilization relies on laws not wars to ensure the freedom and security of its inhabitants.

War and terrorism (attacks by the weak) is sheer, unadulterated barbarism. War is hell. When civilizations wage war they automatically forfeit their civility. War by its very nature violates the inalienable human rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (not to mention about a dozen other rights) and does so without the due process of law or a civil hearing. Anyone who has witnessed the “collateral damage’ of a dismembered mother, child or fetus will agree with the barbarism of waging war be it with high-tech munitions or improvised explosives. And all this doesn’t even include our distraction from the mass murder of thousands of more innocents in Darfur while we debate the legitimacy of a nuclear armed Iran.

US troops do try to avoid the unnecessary loss of innocent life but in the fog of war, murder happens. So far an estimated 30,000 thousand Iraqis, many of them innocent women and children have been killed since our invasion. Hundreds of thousands wounded, sick or made homeless as a direct result of our war of choice. Those responsible for war crimes at Abu Ghraib prison or the recently disclosed Marine slaughter of innocent Iraqi’s near Haditha (a town in western Iraq) in retaliation for the death of one their own, might be held accountable. But, those who started this war will not. In our ‘civilized’ society we call one person who kills another person a murderer. When one person kills a dozen people we call them a celebrity. But, when one person is responsible for killing thousands…we call him President.

Prime Minister Blair is lucky Gandhi isn’t alive to respond to his comment. During the British occupation of his impoverished nation a western journalist asked Gandhi what he thought about western civilization. Gandhi didn’t pause with his accented answer “I think that would be a good idea!”

When the US uses the law of force instead of the force of law to bring those who murder us to ‘justice’, those on the receiving end of our war making and war threats only see us as uncivilized. War only sets the stage for the next war. Only with the global enforcement of the rule of law do we have the real possibility for global civility. Only when war is outlawed will we be truly civil.

3rd anniversary of Shock and Awe.

2006-03-19T11:06:00.000-08:00

On the third anniversary of our “shock and awe” invasion of Iraq there is one word Americans should focus on. Smallpox. While there is yet to be a universally agreed upon definition of terrorism, smallpox, by any measurable indicator is the epitome of human terror.
By body count alone it dwarfs all other forms of lethal force humanity has experienced. Nearly 100 million people were killed in all the wars, revolutions and conflicts combined over the last century. Smallpox alone killed 300 million people in the first 70 years of the last century.
This 70 year statistic exists because smallpox was eradicated around 1970. It was humanities first real victory against infectious diseases. It took a 10 year global campaign with universal participation to wiped the wild virus from the face of our earth.
Unfortunately, Soviet and US scientists fearing a potential smallpox return, kept a few samples of the killer virus in well protected biosecurity labs within their own countries.
Cold war fears and advances in biotechnology allowed the Soviets to modify their samples to create a weaponized version of smallpox, even more lethal than the original. .
Between the cold war years, the fall of the Berlin wall and 9-11 many such engineered biological weapons were poorly stored and accounted for within the former Soviet Union. In the 1990s many bioweapons intelligence experts were concerned that vials of weaponized smallpox had found their way to at least 5 other nations including Iraq.

This one profound factor alone should have been enough reason for President Bush or any other rational policy maker to decide firmly and sanely against an invasion of that middle-east nation. Even Saddam understood that his military was incapable of standing up to US forces. Our greatest fear about invading Iraq shouldn’t have been about the loss of US troops in such fighting. It should have been a last stand reprisal by Saddam to punish the West for it’s unprovoked invasion. What is also should have taught us (and still can) is the lunacy of relying on the physics of military power in a biological era.

Some people might remember that the Bush Administration tried to prepare Americans for just such a scenario by calling for an increase in the production of smallpox vaccines and the inoculation of both US military personal and a large percentage of our nation’s homeland medical and healthcare first responders. This failed for domestic fear of the potential for unintended consequences (side effects?) associated with receiving the vaccine, but even more important, many rightfully feared that the vaccine wouldn’t give any protection against a ‘weaponized strain’.
Prior to the invasion Rep. Chris Shays, (D-Conn) told ABCNews "Smallpox in the hands of Saddam Hussein is a great concern and obviously a more virulent strain is of even more concern." But, Bush decided to invade anyway. It’s hard to imagine any action against Iraq that would have been more irresponsible and risky than an invasion. It alone should be grounds impeachment. Had smallpox been intentionally or accidentally released as a result of our attack the world would have suffered terror on a scale that would make the event of 9-11 seem quaint.
Humanity was fortunate that Saddam had either moved, hidden or earlier eliminated any smallpox vials he may have had in Iraq’s possessed. But, we are not yet safe. Even if there were no WMD in Iraq, with each passing day the increasing power, global distribution and affordability of biotechnology is providing any aggravated nation state, radicalized group or inflamed individual with the capacity to develop a biological weapon that will make smallpox look wimpy.
Oh, and did you happen to notice an announcement by the Whitehouse today on the third anniversary of our ‘shock and awe’ bombing campaign in Baghdad? The Associated Press covered the story saying that the Bush Administration’s cabinet secretaries had just participated in a drill that simulated a “smallpox attack” as a means of testing our government’s plans to “counter the potential use of bioweapons by terrorists.” White House spokesperson, Dana Perino said it was only a drill. A similar rehearsal in December for Pandemic flu showed we needed more planning locally and more production of vaccines.
Everything has changed except our persistent belief that we can achieve peace through strength. When we use that strength irresponsibly we can be sure that we will likely rest in peace before we see it.
Smallpox Drill tests readiness: Cabinet officials take part: Attack not ‘imminent’.
Washington Times Sunday March 19, 2006. Page A3.

Bush’s new “2006 National Security Strategy”

2006-03-16T17:30:00.000-08:00

Bush’s new “2006 National Security Strategy” has more flaws than Port Security.

Iran is not our top security threat. That position is held by natural and bioengineered plagues. And, it is within that context that US policy toward Iran, making them more enemy than friend, that creates our greatest national security threat.

It’s possible that Bush might succeed in stopping Iran from developing nuclear weapons, but it is just such an effort that will only drive Iran to develop biologicals. And, there is no way on God’s green earth that we can prevent Iran from developing biological weapons and using them to end our civilization as we know it. .

Defending his approach of "preemptive war” is both insane and suicidal. It is the most offensive and dangers foreign policy our nation has ever developed. In short, it is an invitation to global lawlessness and Armageddon.
There are signs of evolution in Bush’s policy. Neoconservative policy has mutated into a more realistic policy by putting a greater emphasis on "effective diplomacy" to achieve "transformational democracy” and goes out of its way to say that using “force would be a last resort."
In essence, Bush’s new security strategy is essentially basic liberal ideals emphasizing democracy, prosperity, and international cooperation as the building blocks for global peace. They still don’t see that any future preemptive efforts that might succeed in preventing an attack will only provoke dozens more.
Bush declares in the introduction of the report that American security strategy is founded on two pillars: "promoting freedom, justice, and human dignity" and "confronting the challenges of our time by leading a growing community of democracies." And more than in the 2002 report, Bush speaks of global challenges beyond the military and security threats. "Many of the problems we face - from the threat of pandemic disease, to proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, to terrorism, to human trafficking, to natural disasters - reach across borders," the introduction states. "Effective multinational efforts are essential to solve these problems." This is what foreign policy liberals have been saying all along.
If even one nation adopts pre-emptive doctrine as a realistic approach to dealing with threats, when threats are virtually impossible to detect before use, every person in every nation of the world is at risk. Weaponized smallpox or bird flu makes no distinction between good or evil people, Christian or Muslim, American or Iranian. Essentially, we are all just a warm piece of meat. Reheating preemptive doctrine in any form is not really evolution but instead our first serious step toward extinction.

Iran's Nukes not the real problem.

2006-03-16T16:50:00.000-08:00

A NUCLEAR IRAN WOULD BE BAD.
A FORCIBLY De-nuked IRAN
WOULD BE far WORSE.

The largest antiwar mobilization in history occurred three years ago this month, when over 10 million people marched in more than 600 cities around the world to prevent the United States from launching a unilateral, preemptive, illegal, unprovoked, and unwise invasion of Iraq.
Before that war has ended there can be no doubt that at least two military options are now being "war gamed" by our Pentagon. One, a full scale invasion of Iran, intended to change its regime. The other, assorted "surgical strikes" aimed at "taking out" its nuclear assets.
Either would prove lethally and economically devastating to our proud and unique nation. The costs of modern warfare will exceed all benefits by creating more problems that it will solve. And thousands of innocent souls who have nothing to do with this dispute will end up paying the steepest price.

The next anti war mobilization needs to say more than "war is unhealthy for children and kittens and other living things." It will need to document the enormous unintended but predictable consequences that will befall our nation and the world.

First, Iran would put up an almost infinitely better fight than Saddam's Iraq. There is no doubt the US military would prevail in dislodging Iran's theocratic regime if ordered to do so. But what then in a country with three times the population, four times the area of Iraq, and a three thousand year heritage of fierce national pride? The economists Linda Bilmes and Joseph Stiglitz have concluded that our war, occupation, and nation building in Iraq will eventually cost Americans between $1 trillion and $2 trillion, with no guarantee of success. Any attack on Iran would cost more.

Even a "surgical strike" option would be a disaster with an almost certain prolonged spike in oil prices. Worse yet, without UN Security Council authorization, we would again flout the UN Charter and further enfeeble an international legal system that needs strengthening not gutting.
The one thing the peace community failed to do before the last war was take a stand based on the foundation of our own nations lasting peace....the rule of law. If one nation repeatedly disregards the law of nations, then all countries end up with the law of the jungle.

On a tactical note, in retaliation for any kind of attack, Tehran would likely launch missile strikes on both Israel and the many American military bases throughout the region. And, with its extensive ties to the Shiite majority in Iraq, Iran could cause U.S. casualties there to skyrocket. Tehran might also enhance its sponsorship of suicide bombers in Israel (or Palestinian terrorists might react on their own) or in our own cities here at home.

A great deal of discord does exist within Iran between the forces of theocracy and liberty, but not surprisingly, virtually all Iranians would come together in their defiance of an American strike. Even ordinary Iranians would react negatively to any US military action. Iran’s hardliners would be immediately vindicated -- and their positions in the Iranian power struggle greatly enhanced. The Iranian government could then discard the pretense of "only seeking nuclear electricity," and formally withdraw from the NPT (as President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad already has hinted, North Korea already has done, and all parties have a right to do under Article X). Iran would then proceed directly toward constructing a sizeable atomic arsenal. Persistent US targeting these efforts would inevitably drive Iran into the cheaper and easier to hide alternative of biological or chemical weapons --weapons with the potential to devastate our nation socially, economically and politically. Only a US invasion and full occupation of Iran could even begin to stem the production and distribution of these weapons of mass destruction.

During the Vietnam war, many military leaders believed that every time we killed a Viet Cong guerilla, we created two more. US military command has now stated that our war efforts are creating more terrorists than we are killing. There are just too many Muslim young men inside and outside of Iran who have spent most of their childhoods in madrasa Islamic schools and are now unemployed and idle. Many are likely looking for some purpose in life, some meaning, perhaps even a cause worth dying for.

Our forcible denial of Iran to acquire even a single atomic bomb when we have thousands will undoubtedly drive many Muslims now on the fence to obtaining nuclear or biological destructive capacity. Some will find ways to smuggle them into this country regardless of who manages our ports. Such an attack could make September 11 seem like minor irritation.

Isaac Newton's laws of action and reaction applies to nations as well as billiard balls. Eliminating Iran's nuclear capabilities over there will likely ensure far greater terror back here. There will be no victory…or mission accomplished. Only mass murder on a scale we can barely imagine.

WHAT CAN the US Do ABOUT IRAN.

Mikhail Gorbachev and Eduard Shevardnadze used "mutual security” to bring the cold war to an end. If you threaten your adversaries, they threaten back. If you make your neighbors more secure, you make yourself more secure. The key was understanding the fears of others.

Unfortunately, our nation has only exacerbated Iranian fears with announcements of our intention to initiate preemptive wars against states we determines might someday pose a threat. Our leader recently declared that three nations (including Iran) constitute an "axis of evil." President Bush even issued a new nuclear doctrine that contemplates nuclear first strikes against non-nuclear states (in explicit violation of the NPT), and actually names seven states (including Iran) as possible targets. Bush has already launched one preemptive war against Iran’s eastern border state. Now, Iran finds itself surrounded on all four sides by American military power -- Iraq to the west, Afghanistan to the east, U.S. bases in Central Asia to the north, and the invincible US Navy in the Persian Gulf to the south. Even Bush’s reassurances only make things worse. He proclaims "This notion that the U.S. is getting ready to attack Iran is simply ridiculous," then follows up with, "Having said that, all options are on the table ..."

If Iran looks west it sees Iraq that opened itself to unprecedented international inspections and got itself invaded anyway. If Iran looks east, it sees North Korea that built a nuclear arsenal in secret, and now successfully deters any hint of US aggression. If you were Tehran, what would you do?

Both sides must first ratchet down their rhetoric. Ahmadinejad's genocidal threats to Israel and his Holocaust denial rightfully intensified Western antipathy toward Iran. But few Western leaders seem to grasp that "all options on the table," sounds eerily similar to Hitler’s ‘final option’. Threatening language has no place in a world with nations potentially armed to the teeth with WMD of every nature.

The United States needs to learn the value of carrots over sticks. US aid to Tsunami stricken Muslims or Earthquake flattened Pakistanis did more to obliterate anti-Americanism than anything we’ve yet launched from our shores.

We could start with a mutual security agreement with formal non-aggression pledges if Iran reverses its genocidal hatred for Israel? Or, we could disavowing any effort to bring down the Iranian government through non-military means (as we did in 1953) -- instead of asking Congress for $85 million to "promote democracy" in Iran as Condelessa Rice recently did. Better yet we could offer Iran investments in alternative energy technologies -- wind, solar, tidal -- to wean them from nuclear energy. Most important we should restore the full diplomatic relations we terminated during a hostage crisis that ended more than a quarter century ago.

If we stop making Iranians feel vulnerable and invite them to reap some of the rewards that accompany joining the community of nations, they might feel less inclined to seek any form WMD.

WHAT Could our President say to the world?

A hypocrisy that Washington persistently dodges was framed by former U.S. President Jimmy Carter, with his usual clarity. He said that the nuclear states "refuse to initiate or respect any restraints on themselves, while ... raising heresy charges against those who want to join the sect." Similarly the 2005 Nobel Peace Laureate, Mohamed El-Baradei, says that we must "abandon the unworkable notion that it is morally reprehensible for some countries to pursue nuclear weapons but morally acceptable for others to rely on them." In bazaars and barracks and boulangeries in many parts of the world, angry young men must ask, "Why can the United States possess more than ten thousand nuclear warheads, while our country cannot acquire even one?"

The Bush Administration cannot insist on retaining our nuclear weapons and improving on them far into the future. His 2002 "nuclear posture review" put forth plans to unveil new generations of nuclear weapons in 2020, then again in 2030, and then again in 2040. This nuclear double standard cannot stand.

It is possible that the Iranian nuclear crisis could be defused in a stroke of the pen instead of surgical strikes. We could promise in writing to Iranian leaders:

"We don't expect you to endure the nuclear double standard forever. The NPT doesn't just impose non-proliferation obligations on you, it imposes obligations on us. We understand that you will not forever forego your nuclear weapons if we insist on forever retaining ours. Nuclear weapons won't protect you, and they don't protect us. We know that eventually we must abolish these abominations before they or some other WMD abolishes us."

Our problem with Iran could be solved with those five sentences.

If not this President, perhaps the next. If we are not already occupying Iran or recovering from their retaliatory biological strikes.

Port security.

2006-03-16T16:19:00.000-08:00

Port Security: 3-16-06:

President Bush’s Administration policy regarding the potential Dubai management of half a dozen US ports was handled poorly, but it was the correct policy.

Our only means of improving our security and increasing our chance of catching those who want to do us harm before they to it…is to have more friends in the Arab/Muslim world…not fewer. Our alliance with Dubai is within that context.

With or without foreigners managing our ports these hyper entryways into our nation are critical to both health of our economy and our national security. They are also extremely vulnerable with even the most stringent US security measures possible. The most important aspect of this issue is that nearly 4 years after 9-11…they are not much more secure than they were before.

Bush was right on the Dubai Port management…but even a broken clock is right twice a day. The Bush Administration is a dismal failure in improving our nations port security regardless of who manages them.

Just one oil tanker loaded with a Oklahoma type explosive (a fuel oil and fertilizer type mixture) could yield a near nuclear level explosion. As we saw with the Port of New Orleans after Katrina even the loss of one US port has a lasting national and even global economic consequence.

Independence is a myth.

2006-01-02T03:58:00.000-08:00

1-2-06:

As Americans we are taught early and we assume often that our nation's 'independent' laws are capable of ensuring both our freedoms and our security. This is a simple yet unrecognized mass illusion. Simply put, a national form of insanity.

The real world is entirely interdependent. The most obvious example is our nation's 'war' on terrorism. It has consequences that go far beyond our traditional military security. The good news is that because of our â€˜dependenceâ€™ on oil Middle-East turmoil has forced us to examine our energy policy.

Osama Bin Ladin is clearly an evil, maniacal mass murder but even US military leaders have called him a tactical genius. His two overarching goals are to break us economically and divide us politically. He may be dead, crushed by an earthquake in Pakistan, or quietly fleeting between caves in Afghanistan, but he is winning on both these fronts.

Our individual and national security is increasingly threatened by war, terrorism, pandemics, economic instability, environmental degradation, international crime, genocidal maniacs and natural disasters. Even these threats canâ€™t be viewed as independent. International criminals knowingly assist terrorists and unwillingly the spread of infectious diseases. Both war and poverty increases the risk of global pandemics, terrorist training camps and environmental destruction.

There isn't enough money in the federal budget to effectively secure our borders, maintain our military, wage war in Iraq, slow WMD proliferation, improve intelligence gathering, and effectively prepare for (or respond to) pandemics, natural disasters, or bioterrorists acts, while improving our education, healthcare, employment and environmental protection efforts, only to name a few.

Most of the threats we face come from global factors that fall outside the effective realm of existing US federal policies or United Nations capabilities. This MUST change if we plan to build a safer world for our children.

Nearly every week we learn of a new threat to our freedoms. Not from terrorism. But from our own governmentâ€™s attempt to 'protect' us from terrorism. The House recently renewed the Patriot Act. The Senate will likely follow. Another attack against our homeland will result in even more limits to American freedoms and privacy. The Patriot Act is only the beginning salvo in our decline of freedoms.

Only with new and bold initiatives based on the reality of our global interdependence can we begin to effectively prevent threats (and prepare for those we cannot prevent) without losing our most cherished freedoms and all the rights inalienable to all the souls that share this planet's thin biosphere with us.

Future blogs will put relate this simple yet profoundly ignored reality to the events of the day and highlight other important people, legislation, institutions and trends that are bringing us closer to heaven on earth or Armageddon.